A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-00556.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 20, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) but was denied due to past dishonesty. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant accepted responsibility for his actions but did not allege any harmful error by the judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant accepted responsibility for past dishonesty.
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- E2.A5.1 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-04-17
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-09-27 Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2018-11-20
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
- Importance of Alleging Harmful Error for Appeal
- Acceptance of Responsibility as a Factor in Security Clearance Decisions
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 who was denied a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline E. The applicant did not raise any allegations of error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as the applicant's appeal did not present any harmful error.
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 DIGEST: 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00556.a1 DATE: 11/20/2018 DATE: November 20, 2018 In Re: ----------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-00556
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 April 17, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under 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 September 27, 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. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it states that he knows he made a bad choice in being dishonest, takes full responsibility, and would never do anything to jeopardize his job or the country.
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