CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00177 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00177denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 23-00177

Apr 4, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The initial decision cited disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 15, AG ¶ 21, and AG ¶ 30.

The applicant appealed this decision; however, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board's review process is specifically limited to evaluating allegations of harmful error made by the appellant regarding the judge's initial decision.

In this case, the applicant did not assert any such harmful error during the appeal. Consequently, the Appeal Board found no basis to overturn the original ruling, and the security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 21raisedAlcohol Consumption
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 issuedMar 28, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 5, 2024
Decision dateApr 4, 2024

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations of Appeal Board's Review Authority
Considerations Under Guidelines E, G, and J for Security Clearance Denials

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 eligibility based on concerns under multiple guidelines. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision, leading the Board to affirm the denial.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBenjamin R. Dorsey — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline GGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of 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.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
James B. Norman

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. 23-00177

)

) 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 4, 2024

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On March 28, 2023, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On February 5, 2024, 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. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, he requests reconsideration of the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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 made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board