CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01884.a1 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 19-01884.a1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date9/3/2021
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 19-01884) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a U.S. citizen of Lebanese descent who sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) highlighted his dual citizenship, close family ties in Lebanon, and a history of academic dishonesty, specifically being dismissed from a U.S. university for cheating on two examinations in 2015.
The applicant admitted to the cheating incidents but initially denied them to university officials before later confessing. He maintained that his foreign ties posed no significant risk, arguing that he had safeguarded information for the U.S. military in the past. However, the administrative judge found that the cheating incidents reflected a pattern of dishonesty, raising doubts about the applicant's reliability and judgment. The judge also noted that the applicant's foreign connections created potential conflicts of interest.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, affirming the denial of his security clearance. The appeal board acknowledged a minor error regarding the applicant's alleged dishonesty during an interview but deemed it harmless, as it did not affect the outcome. The board concluded that the judge's decision was well-supported by the evidence and articulated a satisfactory rationale for the denial.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Withdrawn
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01884.a1

Sep 3, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A U.S. citizen of Lebanese descent was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on the applicant's admitted academic misconduct and unmitigated foreign ties.

Specifically, the applicant was dismissed from a U.S. university for cheating on two examinations, which was deemed a pattern of dishonesty. Additionally, the applicant maintained close family ties in Lebanon, raising concerns about potential foreign influence and reliability.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns related to both personal conduct and foreign influence. The applicant's admission of cheating and the potential risks associated with his foreign connections were cited as the primary reasons for the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 6raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted he was dismissed from a U.S. university for cheating on two examinations in 2015.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 30, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateSep 3, 2021Appeal board decision affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Academic Dishonesty Under Guideline E
Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Harmless Error in Judge's Findings Regarding Dishonesty

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 brought by the Applicant challenging the denial of his security clearance based on allegations of dishonesty and foreign influence. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding that any error regarding the Applicant's credibility was harmless and did not change the outcome of the case. The Judge's conclusions regarding the Applicant's pattern of dishonesty and foreign ties were upheld.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in her findings of fact regarding whether the Applicant lied to the investigator.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's error regarding the Applicant's alleged lie to the investigator was harmless and did not affect the outcome of the case. The evidence supported the Judge's conclusions regarding the Applicant's pattern of dishonesty and foreign influence concerns.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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.