CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00063.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00063.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00063.a1

Feb 12, 2018· Hon. Charles C. Hale· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was affirmed because the applicant failed to respond to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) and did not challenge the Judge's findings of fact or conclusions of law in his appeal brief.

The applicant's appeal brief introduced new evidence regarding his debts, which the Board did not consider as it was not part of the original record. The Board's review is limited to determining if the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Ultimately, the applicant's failure to engage with the FORM and to assert any harmful error by the Judge led to the affirmation of the adverse decision, resulting in the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG EraisedPersonal Conduct
AG FraisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Our authority to review a case is limited to those in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error.”
— ISCR Case No. 15-08349 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 2017)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 10, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldOct 25, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge David M. White.
Decision dateFeb 12, 2018Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Failure to Respond to the File of Relevant Material Under Guideline E and F
Limitations on Appeal Regarding Harmful Error
New Evidence Not Considered in Appeal Process.

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 denial of his security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Board affirmed the decision as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in his appeal, and new evidence presented could not be considered. The adverse decision was upheld.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDavid M. White — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief asserts no harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not raise any harmful error in his appeal. The appeal brief contained new evidence that could not be considered, and it did not challenge the adverse findings under Guideline E.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

William S. Fields
James E. Moody
Charles C. Hale

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 e DIGEST: Applicant did not respond to the File of Relevant Material, and his appeal brief asserts no harmful error by the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence about his debts, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Moreover, his brief does not challenge the Judge’s adverse findings under Guideline E. Our authority to review a case is limited to those in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-00063.a1 DATE: 02/12/2018

DATE: February 12, 2018 In Re: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00063

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 June 10, 2016, 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 October 25, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge David M. White denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant did not respond to the File of Relevant Material, and his appeal brief asserts no harmful error by the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence about his debts, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Moreover, his brief does not challenge the Judge’s adverse findings under Guideline E. Our authority to review a case is limited to those in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08349 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 2017).

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board