CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case USA-C Case No. 22-02418-R — CASE

ISCR Case USA-C Case No. 22-02418-Rdenied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. USA-C Case No. 22-02418-R

Apr 19, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to a felony charge of child abuse. The applicant's initial plea was accepted but subsequently set aside, which reinstated the felony charge.

The judges found substantial evidence of misconduct, specifically that the applicant intentionally struck his child, which raised significant security concerns. The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error in the proceedings.

Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct

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 issuedNov 2, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 2, 2023
Decision dateApr 19, 2023

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Reinstated Felony Charges Under Guideline J
Substantial Evidence of Misconduct Impacting Security Clearance
Limitations on Appeal Review Regarding Harmful Error Assertions

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 was regarding the denial of the Applicant's security clearance due to criminal conduct. The Board found that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. Consequently, the Board affirmed the denial of security clearance eligibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
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.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Moira Modzelewski
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: )

)

----- )

USA-C Case No. 22-02418-R

)

) 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: April 19, 2023

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se On November 2, 2020, Department of Defense (DoD) issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant that his conduct raised security concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On October 25, 2022, DoD Consolidated Adjudication Services (CAS) revoked Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information, and he appealed that revocation under the provisions of DoD Manual (DoDM) 5200.02. On December 2, 2022, Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence & Security) Ronald Moultrie issued a memorandum that DoD civilian or military personnel whose clearance eligibility was revoked or denied between September 30, 2022, and the date of that memorandum shall be provided the opportunity to pursue the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) hearing and appeal process set forth in the Directive. As a result of Secretary Moultrie’s memo, Applicant was given the opportunity to receive the process set forth in the Directive, and he elected that process. Tr. at 4.

On March 2, 2023, after holding a hearing, DOHA Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that a Joint Personal Adjudication System Incident Report of May 29, 2020, disclosed that Applicant was arrested on or about May 24, 2020, for the felony charge of Torture/Willful Abuse of a Child-Family. The Judge found: On December 1, 2022, Applicant voluntarily accepted a plea agreement to have the felony charge reduced to the misdemeanor of harassment. He was represented by his criminal defense attorney. His plea of guilty was accepted and the court adjudicated his guilt. He was given a three-month jail sentence that was suspended for two years and was placed on probation for two years. He was also given a fine and required to pay court costs. (GE 5) On December 23, 2022, Applicant filed a motion to set aside his guilty plea. The motion was granted on February 9, 2023, and the plea agreement was set aside. The plea to harassment was removed and the original case has been reinstated, which means the pending charge of child abuse is a felony. As of February 13, 2023, a trial by jury date had not been scheduled. [Decision at 5.] In her analysis, the Judge concluded there was substantial evidence to prove that Applicant intentionally struck his child with a belt on the buttocks and bare legs, which left welts. The Judge further concluded that Applicant’s conduct casts doubt on his good judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability, and that he presented insufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns arising from such conduct. Applicant’s appeal brief contains new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. His brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. 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. 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: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board