A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-08349.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 4, 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 applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge and provided new evidence regarding debt payments, which was not considered by the Board. The judge's decision was affirmed, resulting in a denial of the security clearance.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge.
- The applicant's appeal contained new evidence that the Board could not consider.
- The applicant did not challenge the adverse decision regarding Guideline E.
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
- 2016-06-13
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2017-08-04 Decision made by Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera.
- Decision date
- 2017-12-04 Appeal decision affirmed.
Cite for
- Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Under Guideline E and F
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 Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error and instead presented new evidence, which is not permissible 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: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-08349.a1 DATE: 12/4/2017 DATE: December 4, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-08349
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 June 13, 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 Aug. 4, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and then did not respond to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement by the Applicant that he has paid off all but one of the old debts prior to the date of the decision and he is marking payments on that remaining debt. Applicant does not challenge the Judge’s adverse decision as to the Guideline E allegation. 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, 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