CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00428.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00428.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00428.a1

Jun 7, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to drug involvement under Guideline H. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the judge's decision.

The applicant's past substance use raised security concerns, specifically under Disqualifying Condition H1. While the applicant expressed remorse for his past actions, he did not assert any harmful error in the judge's initial decision to deny the clearance.

Ultimately, the Appeal Board upheld the denial, concluding that the judge's findings regarding the applicant's drug involvement were sufficient to warrant the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedDrug Involvement

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board’s scope of review is limited to addressing allegations that the Judge failed to comply with Executive Order 10865 and the Directive.”
— Executive Order 10865

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 21, 2020
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldFeb 17, 2021Decision made by Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine.
Decision dateJun 7, 2021Appeal affirmed by the Board.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Limited Scope of Review by the Appeal Board
Lack of Harmful Error Assertion by the Applicant

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 Department of Defense denied his request for a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline H. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no basis for overturning the Administrative Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGina L. Marine — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the Judge's decision was sustainable under the applicable standards.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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 H DIGEST: The Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal Board’s scope of review is limited to addressing allegations that the Judge failed to comply with Executive Order 10865 and the Directive. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. In this case, the Judge’s decision is sustainable because Applicant has not alleged that the Judge committed any harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 20-00428.a1 DATE: 06/07/2021 DATE: June 7, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 20-00428 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

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 May 21, 2020, 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) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant

requested a decision on the written record. On February 17, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine denied Applicant’s request for a securityclearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In his appeal brief, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he states that he is sorry for having used illegal substances and promises not to make that mistake again. The Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal Board’s scope of review is limited to addressing allegations that the Judge failed to comply with Executive Order 10865 and the Directive. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. In this case, the Judge’s decision is sustainable because Applicant has not alleged that the Judge committed any harmful error.

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