CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-02617.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-02617.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02617.a1

Mar 26, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance primarily due to concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). While the judge made favorable findings for the applicant under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), these mitigating conditions were not sufficient to overcome the issues identified under Guideline J.

The applicant appealed the denial, but the appeal was unsuccessful. The denial was affirmed because the applicant did not assert any harmful error committed by the judge during the initial decision process. Additionally, the adverse impact of losing a security clearance was not considered a relevant factor in determining security eligibility.

Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied, with the decision upheld on appeal due to the lack of asserted judicial error and the irrelevance of personal impact to the eligibility determination.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

JraisedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

FappliedFinancial Considerations
GappliedAlcohol Consumption

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 issuedOct 15, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 7, 2017
Decision dateMar 26, 2018

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline GGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The appeal brief was largely positive regarding the Judge's findings, and the adverse impact of the decision on the Applicant's life was not a relevant consideration.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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; 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

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 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