CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-08474.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-08474.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08474.a1

Aug 1, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The initial denial stemmed from these issues, which were raised as disqualifying conditions.

While mitigating conditions were considered for both Guideline E and Guideline F, the appeal was ultimately denied. The applicant failed to assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, the Board could not consider new evidence that the applicant presented during the appeal process, as it was submitted after the original hearing.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, upholding the initial decision due to the unaddressed procedural issues and the inability to review new evidence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline FraisedFinancial Considerations
Guideline EraisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

Guideline EappliedPersonal Conduct
Guideline FappliedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal and has no authority to grant Applicant an extension for the purpose of obtaining more evidence.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 9, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 22, 2017
Decision dateAug 1, 2017

Cite For

Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Lack of Appeal Grounds

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 involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge and presented new evidence that was not part of the hearing record. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made 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

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
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: On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-08474.a1 DATE: 08/01/2017 DATE: August 1, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-08474

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 May 9, 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 hearing. On May 22, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1 On appeal Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he argues that he was unable to address his financial problems because he was unemployed and attending school online at the same time. His brief presents new evidence in the form of multiple documents that were not part of the hearing record and a statement that he has recently obtained employment. He requests “a delay in the final decision regarding [his] security clearance application” so that he can “arrange a payment plan, or demonstrate [his] willing[ness] to fulfill all [his] debts.” The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal and has no authority to grant Applicant an extension for the purpose of obtaining more evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29; ISCR Case No. 15-03249 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2017). 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

FOOTNOTES

1 The Judge’s favorable finding under Guideline E is not at issue on appeal.