A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-06535.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 22, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-04-19
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-07-05 Decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2017-09-22 Appeal 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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline F and Guideline E. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
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: 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
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