A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-04036.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 13, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The judge found that the applicant's completion of a rehabilitation program and subsequent sobriety did not mitigate the security concerns raised, leading to the denial of the clearance.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge in his appeal.
- The adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant consideration in security eligibility evaluations.
- The applicant's financial issues and drug involvement were significant concerns that were not sufficiently mitigated.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 25 Drug Involvement and Substance Misuseraised
- AG ¶ 14 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant consideration in evaluating his security eligibility.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2017-03-24
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-06-29
- Decision date
- 2018-09-13
Cite for
- Evaluation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Impact of Drug Involvement on Security Clearance Under Guideline H
- Relevance of Personal Conduct in Security Clearance Decisions Under Guideline E
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 was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations, drug involvement, and personal conduct. The Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F; Guideline H DIGEST: The adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant consideration in evaluating his security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-04036.a1 DATE: 09/13/2018 DATE: September 13, 2018 In Re: ----------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-04036
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 March 24, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On June 29, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statements about, among other matters, him completing a 90-day rehabilitation program in 2014, remaining sober ever since, and filing for bankruptcy in 2018. He also advises of the consequences of him losing his security clearance. However, the adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant consideration in evaluating his security eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015).1
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 1 Applicant’s brief includes character statements that constitute new evidence, which the Appeal Board cannot consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.