CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01653.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01653.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01653.a1

Jan 24, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to unresolved security concerns. The applicant's appeal was subsequently denied, affirming the initial decision.

The denial was based on two primary factors. First, the applicant did not allege any harmful error committed by the judge during the initial adjudication process. Second, the Board was unable to consider new evidence that the applicant attempted to introduce during the appeal, as appellate review is limited to the record established at the initial hearing.

Consequently, without an allegation of judicial error or the ability to introduce new evidence, the Board upheld the original denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline BraisedForeign Influence

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 17, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldOct 10, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi.
Decision dateJan 24, 2018Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Application of Guideline B Regarding Foreign Influence

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after the Department of Defense denied it based on security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any 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 Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal and does not review cases de novo.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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 B DIGEST: Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 16-01653.a1 DATE: 01/24/2018 DATE: January 24, 2018 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01653

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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 17, 2016, 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 10, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi 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 provided a one-page narrative response 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, it contains new evidence including a narrative statement by the Applicant describing changes in his situation subsequent to the close of the record that might mitigate the identified security concerns. Some of this new evidence relates to allegations in which the Judge found in Applicant’s favor. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, the Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal Board’s 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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