CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-04036.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date9/13/2018
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 16-04036.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, Charles C. Hale, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 16-04036.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-04036.a1

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

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The judge identified disqualifying conditions related to these guidelines, specifically AG ¶ 20, AG ¶ 25, and AG ¶ 14.

The denial was based on the significant unmitigated concerns regarding the applicant's financial issues and drug involvement. Although the applicant completed a rehabilitation program and achieved sobriety, the judge determined these actions did not sufficiently resolve the security risks.

In the appeal, the applicant did not claim any harmful error by the judge. The adverse impact of an unfavorable decision on the applicant was not considered a relevant factor in the security eligibility evaluation. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 25raisedDrug Involvement and Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 14raisedPersonal Conduct

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.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 24, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 29, 2018
Decision dateSep 13, 2018

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to concerns under Guidelines F, H, and E. The applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial, stating that the adverse impact of the decision on the applicant was not relevant to the evaluation of security eligibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowWilford H. Ross — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The adverse impact of the decision on the Applicant was not a relevant consideration in evaluating security eligibility.

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; 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

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 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.