CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00418 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00418denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 22-00418

Aug 23, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to multiple criminal convictions and falsifications on security clearance applications. The Administrative Judge initially denied the clearance, citing disqualifying conditions E2.A5.1 and E2.A5.2.

The applicant's criminal record spanned several decades, and he had provided false information on multiple security clearance applications. These issues formed the basis for the denial.

Upon appeal, the Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful errors in the Judge's original ruling, leading to the final denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1raisedCriminal Conduct
E2.A5.2raisedFalsification of Information

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 issuedMay 25, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 6, 2023
Decision dateAug 23, 2023

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on multiple allegations under Guideline E, including criminal convictions and falsifications. The applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful errors in the Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance eligibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBenjamin R. Dorsey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error committed by the Judge, and the decision denying security clearance eligibility was sustainable.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
Allison Marie

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. 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

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 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