A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-06917.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 13, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge and included new evidence that was not considered, leading to the affirmation of the denial.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal included new evidence that could not be considered.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- J Criminal Conductraised
- E Personal Conductraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-06-30
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-02-04 decision on the written record
- Decision date
- 2016-04-13
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
- Criteria for Evaluating Criminal and Personal Conduct Under Security Clearance Guidelines
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 denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline J and Guideline E. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the decision of 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 J; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant asserts no harmful error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-06917.a1 DATE: 04/13/2016 DATE: April 13, 2016 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06917
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 June 30, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On February 4, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein 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 a narrative statement about attending counseling, and the names and telephone numbers of two character references. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review a case de novo. 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board