CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01095.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-01095.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01095.a1

Aug 11, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). Specifically, Disqualifying Conditions G-1 and H-1 were raised.

The applicant appealed the denial, but the appeal board affirmed the original decision. The board noted that the applicant did not allege any harmful error committed by the judge during the initial hearing. Furthermore, the appeal board cannot consider new evidence that was not presented at the original hearing.

Given these factors, the appeal was unsuccessful, and the security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G-1raisedAlcohol Consumption
H-1raisedDrug Involvement

Key Rule Quoted

“We do not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 15, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 12, 2021
Decision dateAug 11, 2021

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline G and Guideline H. The Applicant, representing himself, did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's appeal did not raise any specific harmful errors.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The appeal was limited to the issues raised by the Applicant, and no new evidence was considered.

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 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 ) )

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 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