Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

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

ISCR Case No. 20-00428.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Jun 7, 2021 · 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 under Guideline H. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant's expression of remorse but finding no harmful error in the judge's decision.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Judge.
  • The applicant's past substance use raised security concerns under Guideline H.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • H1 Drug involvementraised

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 issued
2020-05-21
Answer filed
Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held
2021-02-17 Decision made by Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine.
Decision date
2021-06-07 Appeal 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

The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Department of Defense denied his request for a security clearance based on 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 Judge's ruling.

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 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 ) )

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