CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-00423.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-00423.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00423.a1

Apr 6, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The initial decision cited a disqualifying condition (E2.A5.1) related to personal conduct, specifically an allegation of deliberate falsification. While a mitigating condition (F2.A1.3) was applied regarding financial considerations, it did not alter the overall outcome.

The applicant appealed the denial, but the appeal was limited to the issues he raised. Crucially, the applicant did not assert harmful error concerning the adverse decision on the Guideline E allegation of deliberate falsification.

Because the applicant did not challenge the Guideline E finding, the appeal board affirmed the denial of the security clearance. The denial was therefore upheld based on the unchallenged personal conduct concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1raisedDeliberate Falsification

Mitigating

F2.A1.3appliedInability to Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“Our scope of review is limited to cases in which the appealing party has asserted that the Judge committed harmful error.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.32.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 27, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 23, 2017
Decision dateApr 6, 2017

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
Guidance on Deliberate Falsification Under Guideline E

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to concerns under Guideline F and Guideline E. The Board affirmed the denial as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The decision of the Administrative Judge was upheld.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's brief contains no assertion of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not assert any harmful error regarding the adverse ruling on the Guideline E allegation.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
William S. Fields

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: Applicant’s brief contains no assertion of harmful error. Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised an issue harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-00423.a1 DATE: 04/06/2017 DATE: April 6, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-00423

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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 August 27, 2015, 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 January 23, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief includes copies of documents that Applicant had submitted at the hearing regarding the status of his debts. These documents contain handwritten annotations by Applicant that post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In any event, they address the Guideline F allegations, which the Judge had resolved in Applicant’s favor. Applicant’s brief contains no assertion of harmful error concerning the Guideline E allegation of deliberate falsification which the Judge resolved adversely to him. Our scope of review is limited to cases in which the appealing party has asserted that the Judge committed harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. See ISCR Case No. 15-01778 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 31, 2017). Applicant has not made such an assertion regarding the allegation of deliberate falsification. Therefore, the Judge’s 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board