CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-04097.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-04097.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-04097.a1

Apr 30, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline G due to concerns regarding alcohol consumption. The Appeal Board affirmed this denial.

The Board's decision highlighted that the applicant's appeal did not allege any harmful error committed by the judge in the initial determination. Furthermore, the Appeal Board clarified its jurisdictional limits, stating it has no authority over delays in case processing.

Finally, the Board noted it could not consider the impact of an unfavorable decision on the applicant's employment. Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was upheld.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G2raisedAlcohol Consumption

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board has no authority over delays in the processing of a case.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 13, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 27, 2019Decision on the written record.
Decision dateApr 30, 2019

Cite For

Jurisdiction Limitations of the Appeal Board Regarding Case Processing Delays
Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Allegations
Impact of Unfavorable Decisions on Employment Not Considered by the Board.

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 concerns under Guideline G related to alcohol consumption. The Applicant raised complaints about the processing of his case but did not allege any harmful error. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline G

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised complaints about the processing of his case but did not allege any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board has no authority over the processing delays or the impact of the decision on the Applicant's job.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decision

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 G DIGEST: The Appeal Board has no authority over delays in the processing of a case. The Appeal Board has no supervisory authority over adjudicators or DOHA personnel involved in processing security clearances. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-04097.a1 DATE: 04/30/2019 DATE: April 30, 2019 In Re: ---------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-04097

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 February 13, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On February 27, 2019, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains complaints about the processing of his case. He contends that his case took too long to process, that the “case worker” changed at some point and did not have all of the facts from his personal interview, and that he could not get a response from DOHA when he called to check on the status of his case. The Board has no jurisdiction to rule on the complaints he has raised. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.11-12730 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2013) (the Appeal Board has no authority over delays in the processing of a case) and ISCR Case No. 99-0481 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2000)(the Appeal Board has no supervisory authority over adjudicators or DOHA personnel involved in processing security clearances). Applicant also indicates that denial of his security clearance may place his job in jeopardy. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02619 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 7, 2016). Applicant requests a complete review of his file and findings. We do 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