CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-05250.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-05250.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05250.a1

Jun 13, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). While the applicant was found in favor regarding Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the unresolved issues related to criminal conduct and ongoing concerns about alcohol consumption ultimately led to the denial.

The Appeal Board affirmed this denial. The Board noted that the applicant did not claim harmful error by the judge and attempted to introduce new evidence that was not considered during the appeal process.

Specifically, disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 30 and AG ¶ 21 were raised, while mitigating condition AG ¶ 20 was applied. Despite the favorable finding on financial considerations, the persistent issues under Guideline J and Guideline G were sufficient grounds for the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 21raisedAlcohol Consumption

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20appliedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 13, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 27, 2017
Decision dateJun 13, 2017

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Affirmation of Denial Based on Alcohol Consumption Issues Under Guideline G
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on concerns under Guidelines J, G, and F. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline GGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the 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
William S. Fields
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 J; Guideline G; Guideline F DIGEST: 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, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is affirmed. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-05250.a1 DATE: 06/13/2017 DATE: June 13, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-05250

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 May 13, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On March 27, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the Guideline F allegations and against him on the Guideline J and Guideline G allegations. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.1 Instead, Applicant argues that security concerns discussed in the Judge’s decision are no longer valid. In doing so, he makes assertions from outside the record, such as asserting that he successfully completed his criminal probation after the security clearance hearing, providing further information about an alcohol assessment admitted into evidence at the hearing, and expressing a willingness to participate in certain alcohol tests in the future. We cannot consider such new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

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, 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 1 Applicant noted the Judge mistakenly indicated that Applicant was picking up his current fiancee, instead of an ex-girlfriend, when he was arrested for driving while intoxicated in 2011. He does not argue this was a harmful error, and it is unlikely such an error would have affected on the ultimate decision in this case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12- 03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014).