A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-01134
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 6, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline H concerning drug involvement. The Department of Defense denied the application due to concerns about the applicant's past drug use, and the Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge during the appeal.
- The Appeal Board is limited to reviewing cases where harmful error is alleged.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- H1 Drug involvementraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-07-10
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2022-07-05 Decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2022-09-06
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
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on drug involvement under Guideline H. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and provided additional information regarding intent to refrain from marijuana use, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
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
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
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