CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-11103.a1 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date11/13/2008
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 07-11103.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 07-11103.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-11103.a1

Nov 13, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial was affirmed on appeal.

The applicant did not assert that the Judge made a harmful error in the initial decision. Additionally, new evidence presented by the applicant during the appeal process was not considered by the Board, as it fell outside the scope of the appeal.

The Board's decision to deny the security clearance was upheld, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate harmful error and the inadmissibility of new evidence at the appellate stage.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 19raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 18raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 12, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 20, 2008Applicant requested decision on written record.
Decision dateNov 13, 2008

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals

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 being denied due to security concerns under multiple guidelines. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the appeal. The Board cannot consider new evidence presented by the Applicant.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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; Guideline E DIGEST: The board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-11103.a1 DATE: 11/13/2008 DATE: November 13, 2008 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-11103

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 12, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense The Judge found in favor of Applicant as to SOR paragraph 1(q). That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal. Applicant’s appeal brief does not address the Guideline E and J allegations. Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On August 20, 2008, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1 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 an explanatory statement, which indicates that she is keeping current on her bills and trying to budget in a way that would allow her to start paying on her back debts.2 The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. It does not review cases de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed; James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board