CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02913.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02913.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02913.a1

Apr 4, 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) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Administrative Judge found against the applicant on all allegations, a decision the Department of Defense affirmed.

The denial was based on several factors. The applicant had been terminated from his employment and was reliant on unemployment benefits. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Ultimately, the applicant did not identify any harmful error in the Judge's findings, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 7, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldJan 18, 2018
Decision dateApr 4, 2018

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Denial Based on Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Insufficient Demonstration of Harmful Error in Appeal Process

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 whose security clearance was denied based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the judge's decision contained a statement that caused doubt about the entire decision. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not identify any specific harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision, which was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: In his appeal brief, Applicant also provides a list of contacts concerning his termination and eligibility to be rehired. We note, however, that the Appeal Board has no authority to interview witnesses, conduct investigations, or make findings of fact. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-02913.a1 DATE: 04/04/2018

DATE: April 4, 2018 In Re: ------------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-02913

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 September 7, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On January 18, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance by finding against him on all of the SOR allegations. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In his Appeal Brief, Applicant states that he was in agreement with the Judge’s decision until he read the statement: “ Perhaps the record is not clear as to his current situation[.]” That caused him doubt the Judge’s entire decision.1 Appeal Brief at 1. Applicant also states that he has been unemployed since September 2017 and that he and his company have been waiting for a decision in this case so he could return to work. When reviewing a Judge’s decision, the Board does not review individual sentences in isolation, but rather considers the Judge’s decision in its entirety to determine what findings and conclusions were made. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03429 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 15, 2018). In the decision, the Judge made findings that Applicant was terminated from his job in September 2017, was eligible for rehire, and was then dependent on unemployment benefits. Decision at 3. To the extent he may be arguing the Judge mis-weighed the evidence, Applicant has failed to show the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. He has not otherwise identified how the Judge may have erred in the challenged statement. Since we are unable to determine with any degree of certitude exactly what error Applicant is raising, any argument beyond that addressed above fails for lack of specificity. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. ISCR 14-05920 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 8. 2016). In his appeal brief, Applicant also provides a list of contacts concerning his termination and eligibility to be rehired. We note, however, that the Appeal Board has no authority to interview witnesses, conduct investigations, or make findings of fact. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03072 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2018). Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s decision. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also Directive, Encl. 2, App A. ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” 1 The challenged statement is from the Judge’s whole-person analysis. Decision at 8.

ORDER

The Decision 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