CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02496.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02496.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02496.a1

Sep 17, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· 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 by the Appeal Board.

The Board noted that the applicant did not allege any error by the Judge in the initial decision. Furthermore, the Appeal Board is unable to consider new evidence during the appeal process.

The denial was specifically linked to disqualifying conditions raised under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraph 20 and Paragraph 15. Ultimately, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 21, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJul 6, 2018Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales.
Decision dateSep 17, 2018Appeal Board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Alleging Error in a Judge's Decision
Inability to Introduce 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 security concerns under Guideline E and Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant raised no allegations of error and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Charles C. Hale
James F. Duffy

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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains reference letters that were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-02496.a1 DATE: 09/17/2018 DATE: September 17, 2018 In Re: ----------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-02496

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 November 21, 2017, 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 July 6, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains reference letters that were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. His brief also contains a narrative statement about his efforts to resolve his financial problems and his claim that he has never once displayed a lack of candor when it came to the security or mission of our military.

The Board does not review cases 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. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board