CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00198.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00198.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00198.a1

Dec 20, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Administrative Judge's decision to deny was affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Under Guideline F, the applicant had significant and unresolved financial issues. For Guideline E, the applicant's personal conduct concerns were not mitigated by any evidence presented in the record. The Appeal Board noted that character reference letters submitted by the applicant were not part of the official record and therefore could not be considered.

The applicant did not raise any allegations of error against the Administrative Judge's decision. Consequently, the security clearance was denied based on the unmitigated concerns related to financial considerations and personal conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 31, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 19, 2018Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateDec 20, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial Based on Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Limitations of the Appeal Board to Consider New Evidence Not in the Record

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 his 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 error, leading the Board to affirm the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief raised no allegations of 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 Administrative Judge. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence submitted in the appeal.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
Charles C. Hale

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 F DIGEST: In his appeal brief, Applicant forwarded character reference letters that are not contained in the record. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00198.a1 DATE: 12/20/2018 DATE: December 20, 2018 In Re: ---------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-00198

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 January 31, 2018, 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 decision on the written record. On October 19, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In his appeal brief, Applicant forwarded character reference letters that are not contained in the record. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E.3.1.29. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegations of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a request to reinstate his security clearance.

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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board