CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-00560.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-00560.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-00560.a1

May 23, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the applicant's admission that she falsified her security clearance application.

Specifically, disqualifying conditions AG E2 and AG F2 were raised. While the applicant expressed remorse for her actions, her appeal was ultimately denied. The denial was upheld because the appeal did not allege any harmful error on the part of the judge who initially reviewed the case.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG E2raisedPersonal Conduct
AG F2raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 11, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 6, 2018
Decision dateMay 23, 2018

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline F and Guideline E. The Applicant's appeal did not raise any allegations of harmful error, leading the Board to affirm the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJennifer Goldstein — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the appeal was limited to the existing record without new evidence.

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 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

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 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