CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00440 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00440denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00440

Nov 4, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).

The applicant appealed the denial. However, the appeal was unsuccessful because the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. This omission is critical for an appeal to succeed, as it is necessary to demonstrate that the judge made a mistake that negatively impacted the outcome.

Consequently, the adverse decision to deny the security clearance was affirmed, and the applicant's appeal was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

JraisedCriminal Conduct
EraisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 21, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 6, 2021
Decision dateNov 4, 2021

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Asserted
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Reliance on the Original Judge's Findings in the Absence of Error Claims.

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 involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline J and Guideline E. The applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as the applicant failed to allege any harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief makes 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 Administrative Judge, which is necessary for the Board to review the case.

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

APPEARANCES

[Extraction unavailable]

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

--------------------------- )

ISCR Case No. 20-00440

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 KEYWORD: Guideline J; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is sustainable. Adverse Decision is Affirmed. CASE NO: 20-00440.a1 DATE: 11/04/2021 Date: November 4, 2021 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 September 21, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for

that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On July 6, 2021, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is sustainable.

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