A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-04736.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 12, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline B concerning foreign influence. The appeal was denied due to the absence of any assertion of harmful error in the judge's decision, leading to the affirmation of the adverse ruling.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal brief contained no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal that was not presented during the initial hearing.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG B Foreign Influenceraised
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-12-30
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2017-10-24 Decision made by Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez.
- Decision date
- 2018-02-12 Appeal 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
The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
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 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
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