Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 15-01845.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Feb 12, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and H (Drug Involvement). The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision and introduced new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision.
  • The applicant's new evidence was not considered on appeal.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • AG E Personal Conductraised
  • AG F Financial Considerationsraised
  • AG H Drug Involvementraised

Procedural posture

SOR issued
2016-12-07
Answer filed
Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held
2017-11-17 Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales.
Decision date
2018-02-12 Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite for

  • Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
  • Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
  • Affirmation of Lower Judge's Decision Without Harmful Error Claims

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 was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on concerns under Guidelines F, H, and E. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in his appeal, leading the Board to affirm the 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 PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Synopsis

KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline H; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-01845.a1 DATE: 02/12/2018 DATE: February 12, 2018 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-01845

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 December 7, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), 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 November 17, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and then did not respond to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). His appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he argues that “the judge was unable to take many things into consideration based on the information that was provided . . .” and provides new evidence in the form of a narrative statement discussing his past and present circumstances as they relate to the allegations in the SOR. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review a case de novo. Its 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 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