CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01845.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date2/12/2018
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 15-01845.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, William S. Fields, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 15-01845.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01845.a1

Feb 12, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant appealed this decision.

However, the appeal was denied. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's initial decision. Furthermore, the applicant introduced new evidence during the appeal process, which could not be considered at that stage.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, and the denial was upheld on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG EraisedPersonal Conduct
AG FraisedFinancial Considerations
AG HraisedDrug Involvement

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 7, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 17, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales.
Decision dateFeb 12, 2018Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Department of Defense denied his request for a security clearance based on concerns under Guidelines F, H, and E. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in his appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal brief, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
William S. Fields

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

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

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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