CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-05379.a2 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date9/15/2010
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 08-05379.h2) →See the appeal decision (Case 08-05379.a1) →See the hearing decision (Case 08-05379.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, Jean E. Smallin, James E. Moody
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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 08-05379.a2denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-05379.a2

Sep 15, 2010· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from disqualifying conditions related to both guidelines.

The applicant appealed the decision; however, the appeal was denied. The Board found no assertion of harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, new evidence submitted by the applicant during the appeal process was not considered, as it was not part of the original record.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, with the Board upholding the initial determination due to the lack of alleged judicial error and the inadmissibility of new evidence on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG FraisedFinancial Considerations
AG EraisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 12, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 26, 2009
Decision dateSep 15, 2010Decision on Remand issued on June 24, 2010.

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations on New Evidence Submission During Appeals
Review Authority of the Appeal Board Regarding Harmful Error Allegations

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 was from a decision denying the applicant a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the denial of the security clearance. The Board emphasized that it cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge and submitted new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
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: Applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge. Instead, she submitted new evidence, which the Board cannot consider. The Board has authority to decide a case only when the appealing party has alleged harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 08-05379.a2 DATE: 09/15/201 DATE: September 15, 2010 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-05379

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, 2009, DOHA 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 hearing. On August 26, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Department Counsel appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. By decision dated November 24, 2009, we remanded case to the Judge for a new decision. On June 24, 2010, the Judge issued a Decision on Remand, in which he denied Applicant a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error. Instead, it supplies new evidence not contained in the record concerning the facts and circumstances of her bankruptcy petition. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Neither can we review cases de novo. Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Accordingly, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board