A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-00418
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 23, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced allegations under Guideline E related to personal conduct, including multiple criminal convictions and falsifications in security clearance applications. The Administrative Judge denied the security clearance, and the Appeal Board affirmed the decision, noting the applicant did not assert any harmful errors in the Judge's ruling.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had multiple criminal convictions spanning several decades.
- The applicant falsified information on security clearance applications.
- The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful errors in the Judge's ruling.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- E2.A5.1 Criminal conductraised
- E2.A5.2 Falsification of informationraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2022-05-25
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2023-06-06
- Decision date
- 2023-08-23
Cite for
- Denial Based on Multiple Criminal Convictions Under Guideline E
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion on Appeal
- Falsification of Security Clearance Applications as a Disqualifying Factor
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 involved a denial of security clearance eligibility based on multiple allegations under Guideline E. The Applicant, representing himself, did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's appeal did not meet the threshold for harmful error review.
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
Appearances
_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
----- )
ISCR Case No. 22-00418
)
) 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: August 23, 2023
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 May 25, 2022, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective Jun. 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On June 6, 2023, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Benjamin R. Dorsey denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged 12 Guideline E allegations, including six criminal convictions between 1975 and 2014, one resisting arrest charge in 1985 with no disposition noted, an employment termination for workplace policy violations in 2020 followed by an intentional failure to surrender his site badge in an effort to later subvert airport security, and three security clearance application falsifications in 2020. The Judge found against Applicant on each SOR allegation.
Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. Rather, it basically requests that he be given another chance. 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. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Because Applicant has not alleged such a harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility is sustainable.
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board