A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-01084.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 26, 2020 · 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 M (Use of Information Technology) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Despite accepting responsibility for his actions, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial, emphasizing the primacy of national security considerations over personal circumstances.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge during the appeal.
- The applicant's acceptance of responsibility did not mitigate the security concerns raised against him.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG E Personal Conductraised
- AG M Use of Information Technologyraised
Key rule quoted
“[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of national security.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2019-05-17
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2020-05-26
- Decision date
- 2020-08-26 Appeal decision affirmed.
Cite for
- Affirmation of National Security Priority in Clearance Decisions
- Lack of Harmful Error Assertion as a Basis for Appeal
- Insufficient Mitigation of Security Concerns Under Guidelines E and M
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 security concerns under Guideline M and Guideline E. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in his appeal but expressed remorse and requested a second chance. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as there were no allegations of harmful error.
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 M; Guideline E DIGEST: In his appeal brief, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he apologizes for what he has done, accepts responsibility for his misconduct, and asks for a second chance to show he is worthy of the Government’s trust. He also asks that he may be given “the benefit of the doubt.” Appeal Brief at 3. However, “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of national security.” Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b). Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01084.a1 DATE: 08/26/2020
DATE: August 26, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) --------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01084 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )
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 17, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline M (Use of Information Technology) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On May 26, 2020, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In his appeal brief, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he apologizes for what he has done, accepts responsibility for his misconduct, and asks for a second chance to show he is worthy of the Government’s trust. He also asks that he may be given “the benefit of the doubt.” Appeal Brief at 3. However, “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of national security.” Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b). To the extent that he is requesting an exception under Appendix C of the Adjudicative Guidelines, he has not established that the granting of such an exception is merited. See Directive, Encl. 2, App. C. The Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal Board’s scope of review is limited to addressing allegations that the Judge failed to comply with Executive Order 10865 and the Directive. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. In this case, the Judge’s decision is sustainable because Applicant has not alleged that the Judge committed any harmful error.
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael 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