CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-08300.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-08300.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-08300.a1

Sep 13, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F, with personal conduct under Guideline E also raised. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20.

While Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 23 was applied, it was insufficient to overcome the security concerns. The applicant appealed the denial, but the appeal board affirmed the original decision.

The board found no error in the judge's initial determination and noted that the applicant did not allege any specific errors in the judge's findings during the appeal process. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23appliedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Absent a showing of factual or legal error that affects a party’s right to present evidence in the proceeding below, a party does not have the right to have a second chance at presenting his or her case.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-02730 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 24, 2016)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 14, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 12, 2018Decision on the written record.
Decision dateSep 13, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Lack of Entitlement to a Second Hearing Without Error
Applicant's Self-representation and Its Implications in 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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant appealed the decision but did not allege any specific harmful error. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, stating that the applicant was not entitled to a second opportunity to present his case.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowFrancisco Mendez — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised no specific harmful error regarding the Administrative Judge's decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the proceedings below and was not entitled to a hearing for a second chance to present his case.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Charles C. Hale
James F. Duffy

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant has not demonstrated error below and is not entitled to a hearing just so he can have another opportunity to present his case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-08300.a1 DATE: 09/13/2018 DATE: September 13, 2018 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-08300

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On November 14, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On July 12, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. The Judge found against Applicant on a majority of the Guideline F allegations and in favor of him on the Guideline E allegations. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it indicates Applicant has made arrangements to pay debts and has reduced his indebtedness. In the appeal brief, he also requests a hearing. Upon being assigned to this case, the Judge confirmed that Applicant wanted a decision on the written record and reopened the record to provide Applicant the opportunity to submit additional matters. In response, Applicant submitted two items that were entered into evidence without objection. Absent a showing of factual or legal error that affects a party’s right to present evidence in the proceeding below, a party does not have the right to have a second chance at presenting his or her case before an administrative judge. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02730 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 24, 2016). In this case, Applicant has not demonstrated error below and is not entitled to a hearing just so he can have another opportunity to present his case.

The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal 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 a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board