CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01424.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-01424.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01424.a1

Jul 13, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal board upheld this denial, finding no harmful error in the original decision.

The denial was based on disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19 and AG ¶ 15, which relate to the applicant's financial issues and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision.

The board's review was limited to ensuring compliance with relevant directives, and it affirmed the sustainability of the denial based on the established facts concerning the applicant's financial and personal conduct issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

Decision DateJul 13, 2021

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial Based on Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Limited Review Scope of Appeal Board Regarding Harmful Error Assertions

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 Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Bayard Glendon — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion 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 impact of an adverse decision is not relevant to national security eligibility.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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 F; Guideline E DIGEST: In his appeal brief, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he states that he needs a security clearance for a position with his employer. The impact of an adverse decision on an applicant is not a relevant consideration in determining his or her national security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 20-01424.a1 DATE: 07/13/2021 DATE: July 13, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 20-01424 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

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 24, 2020, 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 April 23, 2021, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Bayard Glendon denied Applicant’s request for a securityclearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In his appeal brief, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he states that he needs a security clearance for a position with his employer. The impact of an adverse decision on an applicant is not a relevant consideration in determining his or her national security eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01759 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 8, 2020). The Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal Board’s scope of review is limited to addressing allegations that the Judge failed to comply with Executive Order 10865 and the Directive. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. In this case, the Judge’s decision is sustainable because Applicant has not alleged that the Judge committed any harmful error.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board