Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

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

ISCR Case No. 08-05379.a2

Appeal Board

Decided Sep 15, 2010 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial considerations and personal conduct issues. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, and new evidence submitted was not considered relevant for the appeal.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge.
  • The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal that was not part of the original record.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • AG F Financial Considerationsraised
  • AG E Personal Conductraised

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 issued
2009-02-12
Answer filed
Hearing held
2009-08-26
Decision date
2010-09-15 Decision 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

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.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

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

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