A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-00423.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 6, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert harmful error regarding the adverse decision on the Guideline E allegation of deliberate falsification, leading to the affirmation of the denial.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error regarding the adverse decision on Guideline E.
- The appeal was limited to issues raised by the applicant, which did not include the Guideline E allegation.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- E2.A5.1 Deliberate Falsificationraised
Mitigating
- F2.A1.3 Inability to Resolve Debtsapplied
Key rule quoted
“Our scope of review is limited to cases in which the appealing party has asserted that the Judge committed harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-08-27
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-01-23
- Decision date
- 2017-04-06
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- Guidance on Deliberate Falsification Under Guideline E
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 financial considerations and personal conduct. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the applicant's brief did not contain any assertion of harmful error regarding the adverse findings.
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’s brief contains no assertion of harmful error. Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised an issue harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-00423.a1 DATE: 04/06/2017 DATE: April 6, 2017 In Re: ----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-00423
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 27, 2015, 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 23, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief includes copies of documents that Applicant had submitted at the hearing regarding the status of his debts. These documents contain handwritten annotations by Applicant that post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In any event, they address the Guideline F allegations, which the Judge had resolved in Applicant’s favor. Applicant’s brief contains no assertion of harmful error concerning the Guideline E allegation of deliberate falsification which the Judge resolved adversely to him. Our scope of review is limited to cases in which the appealing party has asserted that the Judge committed harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. See ISCR Case No. 15-01778 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 31, 2017). Applicant has not made such an assertion regarding the allegation of deliberate falsification. Therefore, the Judge’s decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, 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