CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-00853.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-00853.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-00853.a1

Dec 10, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance primarily due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant appealed this decision, but the appeal was subsequently denied.

The denial of the appeal stemmed from the applicant's failure to identify specific errors in the judge's initial decision. Instead, the appeal broadly asserted that the decision was in error without detailing any particular mistakes or misinterpretations of fact or law.

The applicant's arguments on appeal, which included claims of being an honorable employee and efforts to pay creditors, were deemed insufficient to constitute grounds for overturning the original denial. Consequently, the judge's decision to deny the security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG EraisedPersonal Conduct
AG FraisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“There is no presumption of error below and an appealing party has the burden of raising and demonstrating factual or legal error by the Judge with specificity.”
— ISCR Case No. 00-0050 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2001)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 19, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 25, 2018
Decision dateDec 10, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Specific Error Allegations in Appeal
Burden of Proof on Appealing Party to Demonstrate Harmful Error
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority

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 E and Guideline F. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the applicant did not identify any specific error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not raise any specific harmful error in the appeal, merely stating that the decision was in error without providing details.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
Charles C. Hale

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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it merely states the decision is in error without identifying any specific error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-00853.a1 DATE: 12/10/2018 DATE: December 10, 2018 In Re: ----------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-00853

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 April 19, 2017, 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 October 25, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it merely states the decision is in error without identifying any specific error. There is no presumption of error below and an appealing party has the burden of raising and demonstrating factual or legal error by the Judge with specificity. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0050 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2001). His brief also asserts that he has been an honorable employee for 25 years and is making an effort to pay his creditors.

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 of error, 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board