A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-02487
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 19, 2024 · Administrative Judge James B. Norman · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guidelines E and F. The appeal claimed an error regarding the applicant's age, which was found to be harmless. The appeal board affirmed the denial, maintaining that the applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements for security clearance.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal did not successfully demonstrate that the initial decision was erroneous.
- Concerns under Guidelines E and F were upheld by the appeal board.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- E Personal Conductapplied
- F Financial Considerationsapplied
Procedural posture
- Decision Date
- 2024-09-19
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Harmless Error Doctrine Regarding Age in Security Clearance Appeals
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 Guidelines E and F. The Applicant appealed, claiming an error regarding his age, which the Board found to be harmless. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision denying the security clearance.
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. 23-02487
)
) 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: September 19, 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 December 1, 2023, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and F (Financial Concerns) 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). Applicant requested a decision based on the written record, without a hearing. The Government provided Applicant with the File of Relevant Material (FORM) containing the entire record and the Government’s argument. Applicant did not file a response to the FORM and on July 25, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant correctly asserts that the Judge erred when she found that his age was 48, rather than 46. This error was harmless, as it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 95-0495 at 4 (App. Bd. Mar. 22, 1996) (remand or reversal required only where there is a significant chance that, but for the error, a different result might have been reached). Applicant makes no other assertion of harmful error other than suggesting that, because the Judge erred as to his age, there might be other errors. However, he did not identify any other
specific facts that he believed were erroneous. His general conjecture does not raise an allegation of error. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the judge committed harmful error and we do not review cases de novo. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility is sustainable.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-02487 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board