CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-02152.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-02152.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02152.a1

Jan 29, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Specifically, the denial cited Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the Appeal Board upheld the denial. The Board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, the applicant submitted new evidence regarding bankruptcy proceedings during the appeal, which the Board was unable to consider as new evidence cannot be introduced at the appellate stage.

Consequently, based on the established guidelines and the procedural limitations of the appeal process, the security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 11, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 1, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul.
Decision dateJan 29, 2018Appeal Board decision affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Limitations on the Appeal Board's Authority to Review Cases
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error
Inability to Consider New Evidence on Appeal

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 Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and presented new evidence that was not permissible on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — 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 did not allege any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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 F DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-02152.a1 DATE: 01/29/2018 DATE: January 29, 2018 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02152

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 October 11, 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 November 1, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 filed a short narrative response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), stating the he was working with a bankruptcy attorney to help alleviate his past debts. 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 that he has signed his final bankruptcy paperwork and that it is in the process of being filed. He estimates that he should have a court date between mid-January and the end of February in 2018. He does not challenge the Judge’s adverse decision as to the Guideline E allegation. 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 Ra’anan Michael 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