Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

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

ISCR Case No. 16-02617.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Mar 26, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), despite favorable findings under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption) and F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, leading to the affirmation of the adverse decision.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge in the appeal.
  • The adverse impact of losing a security clearance is not a relevant consideration for security eligibility.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • J Criminal Conductraised

Mitigating

  • F Financial Considerationsapplied
  • G Alcohol Consumptionapplied

Key rule quoted

“The adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his security eligibility.”
ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015)

Procedural posture

SOR issued
2016-10-15
Answer filed
Hearing held
2017-12-07
Decision date
2018-03-26

Cite for

  • Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
  • Relevance of Adverse Impact on Applicant's Life in Security Clearance Decisions
  • Favorable Findings Under Guidelines G and F Not Raised on Appeal

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guidelines J, G, and F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision and expressed a positive view of the ruling. The Board affirmed the denial as there were no allegations of harmful error.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Synopsis

KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline G; Guideline J DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-02617.a1 DATE: 03/26/2018 DATE: March 26, 2018 In Re: ---------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02617

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 October 15, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On December 7, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline G and Guideline F have not been raised as an issue on appeal. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement in which Applicant stated he found the Judge’s decision “overwhelmingly positive in my favor” and noted that he will be off probation this year for his 2010 felony conviction for driving under the influence with a child under 15 years of age. Appeal Brief at 1. He also stated that loss of his security clearance will have a detrimental effect on him and his family. However, the adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his security eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). The Board does not review a case 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 an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board