A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-02496.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 17, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any error by the Judge and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not raise any allegations of error by the Judge.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2017-11-21
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2018-07-06 Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales.
- Decision date
- 2018-09-17 Appeal 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
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 Applicant's appeal did not raise any allegations of error, leading the Board to affirm the 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 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
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