CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00556.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00556.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00556.a1

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

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to past dishonesty. The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition E2.A5.1.

The applicant accepted responsibility for his past actions. However, he did not allege any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant's acceptance of responsibility but the absence of any claim of judicial error. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 17, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 27, 2018Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateNov 20, 2018

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline E. The applicant, representing himself, did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as no harmful error was raised.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised no specific allegations of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to the errors claimed by the appealing party.

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 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

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 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