A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-00063.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 12, 2018 · Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to issues under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on the applicant's failure to respond to the File of Relevant Material and not challenging the Judge's findings, leading to the affirmation of the adverse decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- Applicant did not respond to the File of Relevant Material.
- Applicant's appeal brief did not assert any harmful error by the Judge.
- The appeal brief contained new evidence about debts, which was not considered.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG E Personal Conductraised
- AG F Financial Considerationsraised
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-06-10
- Answer filed
- Applicant represented himself.
- Hearing held
- 2017-10-25 Decision made by Administrative Judge David M. White.
- Decision date
- 2018-02-12 Appeal 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
The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to concerns under Guideline F and Guideline E. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal and provided new evidence regarding debts, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the Administrative 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 PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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