A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-02103.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 5, 2017 · Administrative Judge James E. Moody · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was based on new evidence and did not assert any harmful error by the judge, leading to the affirmation of the denial.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge in her appeal.
- The appeal included new evidence that the Board could not consider.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-11-06
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2017-03-13 Decision made by Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman.
- Decision date
- 2017-06-05 Appeal decision affirmed.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
- Considerations Under Guideline E and F in Security Clearance Cases
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 her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in her appeal brief.
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 appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-02103.a1 DATE: 06/05/2017 DATE: June 5, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-02103
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 November 6, 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 decision on the written record. On March 13, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that her case be decided on the written record and then did not respond to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). Her appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a detailed narrative statement explaining the SOR allegations, and attachments including character references and documents showing debt payment or resolution. Some of the documents post-date the Judge’s decision. Applicant requests that the Board reverse the Judge’s adverse decision based on the attachments enclosed with her brief. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, 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