A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-01424.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 13, 2021 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal board upheld the denial, finding no harmful error in the original decision and affirming the sustainability of the denial based on the applicant's financial issues and personal conduct.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge.
- The board's review was limited to compliance with relevant directives.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Procedural posture
- Decision Date
- 2021-07-13
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
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.
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 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 ) )
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