A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-08474.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 1, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial concerns under Guideline F and personal conduct issues under Guideline E. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, and new evidence presented was not considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to assert harmful error by the Judge on appeal.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence presented after the hearing.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- Guideline F Financial Considerationsraised
- Guideline E Personal Conductraised
Mitigating
- Guideline E Personal Conductapplied
- Guideline F Financial Considerationsapplied
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-05-09
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-05-22
- Decision date
- 2017-08-01
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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Judge and presented new evidence that was not part of the original hearing. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision.
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: 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
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.