A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-05141.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 3, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board upheld the denial, noting the applicant did not assert harmful error and presented new evidence that could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG F1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
- AG E2 Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaireraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board’s jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party asserts harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-04-04
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2016-03-03
- Decision date
- 2016-05-03
Cite for
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Jurisdiction Regarding Harmful Error Assertions
- Inability to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
- Denial Based on Financial Considerations and Personal Conduct Issues
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
Appeal at a glance
The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the Administrative Judge's decision.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant did not raise an issue on harmful error. The Appeal Board’s jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party asserts harmful error. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-05141.a1 DATE: 05/03/2016 DATE: May 3, 2016 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05141
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On April 4, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On March 3, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement about the origins of Applicant’s financial problems, and her intention to file for bankruptcy in the near future. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board