A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-00216.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 7, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on allegations of drug involvement and personal conduct under Guideline H and Guideline E. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's decision, which found against him on most allegations.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant used marijuana from 2012 to 2019, including after being granted access to classified information in 2016.
- The applicant falsified responses regarding drug involvement on security clearance applications.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- H1 Drug involvementraised
- E2 Falsification of informationraised
Key rule quoted
“A DOHA Judge has no authority over how clearance investigations are conducted.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2019-02-28
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-08-21
- Decision date
- 2019-11-07
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding Harmful Error Allegations
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 regarding the denial of a security clearance based on drug involvement and personal conduct. The Applicant argued that the denial was primarily due to a lack of an interview before a previous clearance was granted. The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant contends that the main reason his security clearance was denied was because he was not interviewed before his Secret security clearance was granted. He notes that he was honest during a subsequent Top Secret clearance interview. This contention raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. A DOHA Judge has no authority over how clearance investigations are conducted. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 19-00216.a1 DATE: 11/07/2019
DATE: November 7, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ---------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-00216 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )
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 28, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Department Counsel requested a hearing. On August 21, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline H, the SOR alleged that Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from 2012 to 2019, he used marijuana after being granted access to classified information in 2016, and he intends to continue to use marijuana. Under Guideline E, it alleged he falsified three responses to questions pertaining to his drug involvement in security clearance applications. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on one falsification allegation and against him on the remaining allegations. In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that the main reason his security clearance was denied was because he was not interviewed before his Secret security clearance was granted. He notes that he was honest during a subsequent Top Secret clearance interview. This contention raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. A DOHA Judge has no authority over how clearance investigations are conducted. 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.
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board