CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01084.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01084.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01084.a1

Aug 26, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The denial was based on specific disqualifying conditions related to these guidelines.

During the appeal process, the applicant did not claim any harmful error by the judge. While he accepted responsibility for his actions, this acceptance was not deemed sufficient to mitigate the security concerns identified.

Ultimately, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, prioritizing national security considerations over the applicant's personal circumstances or his acknowledgment of responsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG EraisedPersonal Conduct
AG MraisedUse of Information Technology

Key Rule Quoted

“[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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 17, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 26, 2020
Decision dateAug 26, 2020Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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 harmful errors alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline MGuideline 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 decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the Judge's decision was sustainable based on the evidence presented.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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 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 ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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