Loading case…

ISCR 15-05438.a1: Guideline E security clearance appeal, denied (2017) · CASE

ISCR Case 15-05438.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05438.a1

Oct 20, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The initial decision cited disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15.

The applicant appealed the denial; however, the appeal was unsuccessful. The Board's review authority is limited to cases where harmful error by the judge is alleged. In this instance, the applicant did not assert any such error.

Consequently, the adverse decision was affirmed, and the security clearance was denied.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key rule quoted

“The Board does not review a case de novo.”
ISCR Case No. 07-05632 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2008)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedFeb 16, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 24, 2017Decision issued by Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola
Decision dateOct 20, 2017

Cite for

Limitations of the Board's Review Authority in Security Clearance Appeals
Importance of Alleging Harmful Error for Successful Appeals
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Asserted

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 Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The applicant's additional claims were deemed outside the Board's review authority.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of 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 appeal was based on a narrative statement rather than specific claims of error.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan (Chair)
James F. Duffy
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 appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-05438.a1 DATE: 10/20/2017 DATE: October 20, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-05438

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 February 16, 2016, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On August 24, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement in which Applicant challenges the circumstances of her termination of employment after the Judge’s adverse decision. Any recourse she might have for this complaint would be addressed properly in another forum. She also asserts that she does not need a security clearance for her work. The Board is no position to assess the validity of such an assertion. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-05632 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2008). The Board does not review a case de novo. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board