A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 11-08981.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 11, 2013 · Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was denied as the applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge and submitted new evidence that could not be considered. The adverse decision was affirmed due to the lack of a valid basis for appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge.
- The new evidence submitted on appeal was not considered as it was not part of the original hearing record.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2012-08-31
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2013-01-31
- Decision date
- 2013-04-11
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Lack of Harmful Error Allegations
- Limitations on New Evidence Submission During Appeals
- Application of Guidelines E and F in Security Clearance Denials
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 F and Guideline E. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and submitted new evidence that was not part of the record considered by the Judge.
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 F; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant has not alleged harmful error by the Judge. He has submitted new evidence which the Board cannot consider. Adverse decision Affirmed CASENO: 11-08981.a1 DATE: 04/11/2013 DATE: April 11, 2013 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-08981
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 August 31, 2012, 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 hearing. On January 31, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. 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 four letters to a creditor. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Judge had granted Applicant’s request to keep the record open for one month to allow Applicant the opportunity to submit additional evidence. Applicant made a timely submission of eight documents, which the Judge admitted into evidence as Applicant’s Exhibit A. Tr. 66-67; Decision at 2. The four letters to the creditor were not part of that submission. In his brief, Applicant avers that he needed extra time to find the letters because they were buried in a box after he had moved to his new house. However, there is nothing in Applicant’s post hearing submission to indicate that he needed more time to locate evidence and that additional documents would be forthcoming. 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board