A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-00177
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 4, 2024 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guidelines E, G, and J due to personal conduct, alcohol consumption, and criminal conduct concerns. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge during the appeal process.
- The Appeal Board's review is limited to allegations of harmful error, which were not made by the applicant.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
- AG ¶ 21 Alcohol Consumptionraised
- AG ¶ 30 Criminal Conductraised
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
- 2023-03-28
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2024-02-05
- Decision date
- 2024-04-04
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
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.
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. 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
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