CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-08981.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-08981.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-08981.a1

Apr 11, 2013· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was denied. The primary reasons for the denial of the appeal were that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge during the initial proceedings. Additionally, the applicant submitted new evidence during the appeal process, which could not be considered as it was not part of the original hearing record.

Consequently, the adverse decision to deny the security clearance was affirmed due to the absence of a valid basis for appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 31, 2012
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 31, 2013
Decision dateApr 11, 2013

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

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

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
James E. Moody
William S. Fields

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 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

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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