CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01134 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-01134denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01134

Sep 6, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The Department of Defense denied a security clearance application under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to concerns about the applicant's past drug use. The applicant, representing himself, sought to appeal this decision.

However, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board's review is limited to cases where harmful error by the judge is alleged. In this instance, the applicant did not assert any such error during the appeal process.

Consequently, with no harmful error alleged for the Board to review, the initial denial of the security clearance was upheld.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedDrug Involvement

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 10, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 5, 2022Decision on the written record.
Decision dateSep 6, 2022

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Guidance on Drug Involvement Under Guideline H

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 an Applicant who was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline H related to drug involvement. The Applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the decision was sustainable without any allegations of error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEric C. Price — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge, and the decision was sustainable based on the existing record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Moira Modzelewski

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

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

----- )

ISCR Case No. 20-01134

)

) 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 Date: September 6, 2022

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 July 10, 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 July 5, 2022, after the record closed, Administrative Judge Eric C. Price denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant make no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, he provides additional information regarding his intent to refrain from use of marijuana. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29.

The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. The 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board