A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-02363
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 20, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to drug involvement under Guideline H. The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge, and new evidence regarding her cessation of marijuana use was not considered. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial based on the lack of harmful error claims.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about 2012 to about November 2021.
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in her appeal.
- The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- H.1 Drug involvementraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-12-07
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2022-05-18 Decision made by Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason.
- Decision date
- 2022-07-20 Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Pro Se Representation in Security Clearance Cases
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 security clearance based on drug involvement under Guideline H. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and requested consideration of new information regarding her marijuana use. The Board affirmed the denial as the appeal did not raise any harmful errors.
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. 21-02363
)
) 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: July 20, 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 December 7, 2021, 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 DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On May 18, 2022, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant received Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on March 7, 2022, and was given 30 days from its receipt to file objections or submit additional matters for the Judge’s consideration. She did not submit a response to the FORM. The Judge found against Applicant on the sole SOR allegation asserting that she used marijuana with varying frequency from about 2012 to about November 2021.
In her July 2022 appeal brief, Applicant’s brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, she indicates that, due to therapy and lifestyle changes, she has not needed to use marijuana in over three months. She asks that “the Appeal Board take this new information into consideration when reviewing [her] case[.]” Appeal Brief at 1. The Board, however, 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 alleged any harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility 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 D. Modzelewski Moira D. Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board