CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03254 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-03254denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03254

Oct 26, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from unresolved financial issues and a lack of candor during the initial adjudication process.

Specifically, the disqualifying conditions cited were AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15. The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was ultimately denied. The appellate authority noted that the applicant failed to assert any harmful error committed by the original judge. Furthermore, the appeal included assertions that had not been presented to the judge for consideration during the initial review.

Consequently, the adverse decision to deny the security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 4, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 4, 2021Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateOct 26, 2021Decision 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant, representing themselves, did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the applicant failed to meet the threshold for harmful error review.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPamela C. Benson — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not allege any harmful error by 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, and the Board's review is limited to such allegations.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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

_______________________________________________ ) 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

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 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