A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-02885
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 18, 2021 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to a recent DUI conviction. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge in the appeal.
- New evidence regarding probation terms was not considered as it was not presented during the initial hearing.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- G.2.a Alcohol-related offensesraised
- E.2 Personal conduct that reflects lack of judgmentraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-01-04
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2021-07-12 Decision made by Administrative Judge Stephanie C. Hess.
- Decision date
- 2021-10-18 Appeal decision affirmed by the Appeal Board.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Alcohol-related Offenses Under Guideline G
- Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal Process
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals
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 Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline G and Guideline E. The Applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error, and the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as the appeal did not meet the necessary criteria for review.
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
Appeal Board Decision
_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
------------------------- )
ISCR Case No. 20-02885
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. It does set forth the specific terms and conditions of his probation imposed for a recent Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol conviction. This is information that was not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse Decision Affirmed. CASE NO: 20-02885 DATE: 10/18/2021 Date: October 18, 2021
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 January 4, 2021, 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 E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On July 12, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Stephanie C. Hess 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. It does set forth the specific terms and conditions of his probation imposed for a recent Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol conviction. This is information that was not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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 sustainable.
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