CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01829 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date3/24/2022
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 20-01829) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 20-01829denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01829

Mar 24, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a U.S. security clearance based on concerns under four guidelines: E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), and H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from multiple allegations, including alcohol and drug use, delinquent debts, and falsifications made on his security clearance application.

The judge found sufficient evidence to support the denial, specifically citing issues under Guidelines G, H, and E. The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was ultimately denied.

The denial of the appeal was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate any harmful error that affected the outcome of the original case. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

GraisedAlcohol Consumption
HraisedDrug Involvement
FraisedFinancial Considerations
EraisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 14, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateMar 24, 2022Appeal decision affirmed original denial.

Cite For

Denial Based on Multiple Allegations Under Guidelines E, F, G, and H
Insufficient Demonstration of Harmful Error Impacting the Outcome
Affirmation of the General Standard for Security Clearance Decisions

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 security clearance based on concerns under multiple guidelines, including alcohol consumption and drug involvement. The applicant claimed to have submitted additional evidence that was not considered. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error that would have affected the outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline HGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that he mailed evidence to the Judge regarding the Guideline F allegations.

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 no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance based on substantial evidence supporting the findings under Guidelines G, H, and E.

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

James F. Duffy — Chair
James E. Moody
Moira Modzelewski

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

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

------- )

ISCR Case No. 20-01829

)

) 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 Date: March 24, 2022

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 December 14, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On February 1, 2022, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline G, the SOR alleged four alcohol concerns. Under Guideline H, the SOR alleged two drug concerns, including long-term marijuana use and drug use while holding a security clearance. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged two delinquent debts to the same credit union, totaling approximately $13,000. Under Guideline E, the SOR cross-alleged all those behaviors, but also alleged four falsifications, to include falsifications on his security clearance

application, on his response to interrogatories, and to a licensed psychologist, all having to do with Applicant’s alcohol and drug use history. The Judge found against Applicant on all allegations. On appeal, Applicant represents that he mailed evidence to the Judge on November 29, 2021, regarding the Guideline F allegations. However, the record establishes that Applicant received the Government’s file of relevant material (FORM) on September 2, 2021, that he was advised to submit any response within 30 days of receipt, that he timely submitted a one-page letter, that the record was closed on October 2, 2021, and that the case was forwarded to the Judge for decision on December 13, 2021. The record contains no indication that Applicant requested an extension of the 30-day deadline. Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that he requested an extension of time, that his request was approved, and that he subsequently submitted any documents within the new deadline. A review of the entire record discloses no basis to conclude that Applicant was denied the rights due him under the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01237 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 5, 2017). Moreover, our review of the record confirms that, had the Judge received and considered the mailed documents, it would likely have had no impact on his decision. Assuming arguendo that the documents resolved the Guideline F concerns, the record evidence is more than sufficient to support the Judge’s denial based on the remaining allegations under Guidelines G, H, and E. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no other assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Applicant has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating an error that likely impacted the outcome of the case. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board