A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-00560.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 23, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to issues under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant admitted to falsifying her security clearance application and expressed remorse, but the appeal was denied as no harmful error was alleged against the judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to falsifying her security clearance application.
- The appeal did not allege any harmful error by the judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG E2 Personal Conductraised
- AG F2 Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2017-05-11
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-03-06
- Decision date
- 2018-05-23
Cite for
- Adverse Decision Affirmed Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegations
- Applicant's Admission of Falsification as a Critical Factor
- Limitations of Appeal Review Process Regarding Harmful Error Claims
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 seeking a security clearance after being denied due to concerns under Guideline E and Guideline F. The applicant's appeal did not raise any allegations of harmful error, leading the Board to affirm 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 DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-00560.a1 DATE: 05/23/2018 DATE: May 23, 2018 In Re: ----------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No.17-00560
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 May 11, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On March 6, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Jennifer Goldstein 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 statement about the status of her debts and her efforts to resolve them. In the appeal brief, she also admitted that she falsified her security clearance application and stated that she was extremely remorseful for doing so and it will not happen again. 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