Loading case…

ISCR 15-04736.a1: Guideline B security clearance appeal, denied (2018) · CASE

ISCR Case 15-04736.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04736.a1

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

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance, which was ultimately denied under Guideline B, Foreign Influence. The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to assert any harmful error in the judge's initial decision during his appeal.

The Board's review process is limited to the evidence presented at the initial hearing, and new evidence cannot be introduced during the appeal. Consequently, without a specific claim of error in the original ruling, the Board affirmed the adverse decision.

Therefore, the security clearance was denied because the applicant's appeal brief did not demonstrate any procedural or substantive error in the judge's initial determination.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG BraisedForeign Influence

Key rule quoted

“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.”
ISCR Case No. 14-06419 (App. Bd. Sep. 15, 2016)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedDec 30, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldOct 24, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez.
Decision dateFeb 12, 2018Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite for

Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
Guidelines for Foreign Influence Under Guideline B

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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on security concerns under Guideline B. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the denial of the clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowFrancisco Mendez denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline B

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 allege any harmful error. The appeal was based on new evidence that could not be considered.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan (Chair)
Charles Hale
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 B DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-04736.a1 DATE: 02/12/2018 DATE: February 12, 2018 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-04736

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 30, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On October 24, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez 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). 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 by the Applicant detailing his service with the U.S. military as a translator in Iraq and explaining his continuing contacts with family members in Iraq, along with copies of multiple certificates of appreciation and commendation letters. 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. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14- 06419 (App. Bd. Sep. 15, 2016). 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Charles Hale Charles Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board