CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-06535.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-06535.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06535.a1

Sep 22, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The initial denial was based on Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal board affirmed the denial. The board noted that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, the appeal board was unable to consider any new evidence presented by the applicant, as appellate review is limited to the record established during the initial hearing.

Consequently, the security clearance was DENIED, with the appeal board upholding the original determination based on the procedural limitations and the applicant's failure to demonstrate judicial error.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error.”
— ISCR Case No. 15-01778 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 31, 2017)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 19, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 5, 2017Decision on the written record.
Decision dateSep 22, 2017Appeal board decision.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
Authority of Appeal Board in Reviewing Judge's Decisions

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 and personal conduct concerns. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board's review was limited to the claims made by the Applicant, which did not include allegations of harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — 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 did not allege any 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 the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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: The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. Additionally it has no authority to grant an applicant an extension for the purpose of obtaining more evidence. The 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-06535.a1 DATE: 09/22/2017 DATE: September 22, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-06535

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 April 19, 2016, 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 July 5, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief contains no assertion of harmful error by the Judge. Rather, it includes information about his military service and civilian employment experience and notes that Applicant has held a clearance for many years without incident or concern. Much of Applicant’s brief consists of new evidence, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. We do not review a case de novo. Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01778 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 31, 2017). Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error by the Judge. Therefore, the Judge’s decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board