A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-03254
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 26, 2021 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues and lack of candor. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the original judge, leading to the affirmation of the adverse decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the Judge in the appeal.
- The appeal contained assertions not presented to the Judge for consideration.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-01-04
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2021-08-04 Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2021-10-26 Decision affirmed on appeal.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- Criteria for Evaluating Financial Considerations and Personal Conduct in Security Clearance Cases.
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 a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline F and Guideline E. The Board affirmed the denial, noting that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal.
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
_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
---------------------------- )
ISCR Case No. 20-03254
)
) 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 F; Guideline E DIGEST: The Board does not review cases 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. 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: 20-03254.a1 DATE: 10/26/2021 Date: October 26, 2021
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 January 4, 2020, 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 decision on the written record. On August 4, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Pamela C. Benson 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. It does contain assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases 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. 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