CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02487 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02487

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date9/19/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02487) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and F (Financial Concerns) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued on December 1, 2023, outlined the basis for the denial, which included issues related to the applicant's personal conduct and financial history.
During the proceedings, the applicant requested a decision based on the written record and did not respond to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) provided by the government. The administrative judge, Carol G. Ricciardello, ultimately denied the applicant's security clearance eligibility on July 25, 2024. The applicant later appealed the decision, claiming an error regarding his age, which was incorrectly stated as 48 instead of 46. However, the appeal board found this error to be harmless and noted that the applicant did not provide any other specific allegations of harmful error.
The appeal board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, stating that the applicant failed to demonstrate any significant chance that the outcome would have been different but for the alleged error regarding his age. Consequently, the ruling to deny the applicant's security clearance eligibility was upheld.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 23-02487

Sep 19, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant appealed the initial decision, arguing an error regarding his age.

However, the appeal board determined this age-related error was harmless and did not affect the overall decision. The board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the initial decision was erroneous.

Ultimately, the concerns under Guidelines E and F were upheld, and the applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements for a security clearance. The denial of the security clearance was sustained.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

EappliedPersonal Conduct
FappliedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

Decision DateSep 19, 2024

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
The Judge erred in finding the Applicant's age as 48 instead of 46.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's error regarding the Applicant's age was harmless and did not affect the outcome of the case. The Applicant did not allege any other harmful errors, and thus the Judge's decision was affirmed.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
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.