A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-01095.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 11, 2021 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns regarding alcohol consumption and drug involvement under Guideline G and Guideline H. The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error by the original judge and presented no new evidence for reconsideration.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal board cannot consider new evidence not presented during the original hearing.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- G-1 Alcohol Consumptionraised
- H-1 Drug Involvementraised
Key rule quoted
“We do not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-10-15
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2021-05-12
- Decision date
- 2021-08-11
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Alcohol and Drug Involvement Under Guidelines G and H
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- Requirements for Demonstrating Harmful Error in Security Clearance Decisions
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 G and Guideline H. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, noting that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in 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 PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline H DIGEST: In this case, the Judge’s decision is sustainable because Applicant has not alleged the Judge committed any harmful error. Adverse Decision Affirmed. CASE NO: 20-01095.a1 DATE: 08/11/2021 DATE: August 11, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 20-01095 ) ) 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 October 15, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and 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 May 12, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents and assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board, however, is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant states that he did not understand the DOHA process, though he does not claim that the information he received was inadequate. In any event, DOHA guidance to Applicant was sufficient to place a reasonable person on notice of his rights and responsibilities. Applicant requests the Board reconsider the Judge’s decision. As set forth in Directive ¶ E3.1.32, our scope of review is limited to addressing material issues raised by the parties to determine whether the Judge committed harmful error in his or her decision. We do not review cases de novo. In other words, we do not take a fresh, new look at the evidence to determine whether we agree or disagree with the Judge’s decision. In this case, the Judge’s decision is sustainable because Applicant has not alleged 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