CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-02103.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-02103.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-02103.a1

Jun 5, 2017· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns 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 did not assert any harmful error by the judge. Instead, the appeal introduced new evidence that the Board was unable to consider during its review.

Consequently, the Board affirmed the original denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 6, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 13, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman.
Decision dateJun 5, 2017Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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 Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in her appeal. The appeal included new evidence, which the Board could not consider, leading to the affirmation of the adverse decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of 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 presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

James E. Moody
James F. Duffy
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’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

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 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