Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 17-00853.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Dec 10, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was denied as the applicant failed to identify specific errors in the judge's decision, which affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant did not raise specific allegations of error regarding the judge's decision.
  • The appeal merely stated the decision was in error without identifying any specific error.
  • The applicant's claims of being an honorable employee and efforts to pay creditors did not constitute grounds for appeal.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • AG E Personal Conductraised
  • AG F Financial Considerationsraised

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 issued
2017-04-19
Answer filed
Hearing held
2018-10-25
Decision date
2018-12-10

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

The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial and personal conduct concerns. The Applicant's appeal did not identify any specific errors made by the Judge. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as no harmful error was alleged.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

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

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