CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03981.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03981.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03981.a1

Aug 14, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant, representing herself, appealed the initial denial, alleging judicial bias and errors in the original decision.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error or provide sufficient evidence to support her claims of bias against the judge. The board underscored the significant burden of persuasion required to overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality.

Ultimately, the applicant did not establish any error warranting a remand of her case, leading to the final denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is impartial and unbiased, and a party seeking to overcome that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion.”
— ISCR Case No. 12-10122 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 22, 2016)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 11, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 2, 2018
Decision dateAug 14, 2018

Cite For

Burden of Persuasion Regarding Judicial Bias
Rebuttable Presumption of Judicial Impartiality
Limitations of Appeal Board Review Process

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. The applicant argued that the judge was biased against her but did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul Mason — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the judge was biased against her.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no persuasive evidence of bias and determined that the applicant did not establish any harmful error warranting remand.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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 F DIGEST: There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is impartial and unbiased, and a party seeking to overcome that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-03981.a1 DATE: 08/14/2018 DATE: August 14, 2018 In Re: ------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-03981

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 December 11, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On May 2, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Paul Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant stated that she disagreed with the Judge’s ruling and indicated that she gave him all the information he had requested but was not sure what she gave him.1 She requested that her case be evaluated by someone else and stated, “I was uncomfortable with the judge. I felt looked down on and it was probably just me but it was not a good feeling.” Appeal Brief at 1. To the extent that she may be arguing the Judge was biased against her, we do not find that argument persuasive. There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is impartial and unbiased, and a party seeking to overcome that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-10122 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 22, 2016). Applicant has failed to establish any error that warrants remand of her case. See Directive ¶ E3.1.33.2. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no other allegation of error on the part of the Judge. 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 sustainable. 1 In her appeal brief, Applicant actually stated, “I am not sure what I did not give him.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board