A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-01694
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 11, 2024 · Administrative Judge James B. Norman · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, faced security concerns under Guideline H (drug involvement) and Guideline J (criminal conduct). The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance due to the lack of harmful error asserted in the appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge, leading to the affirmation of the denial.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 24 Criminal conductraised
- AG ¶ 25 Drug involvementraised
Procedural posture
- Decision date
- 2024-09-11
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error in Appeal
- Security Concerns Related to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
- Security Concerns Related to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
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 eligibility based on security concerns under Guidelines H and J. The Applicant, representing himself, did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as there were no allegations of harmful error.
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. 23-01694
)
) 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 11, 2024
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 17, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guidelines H (Drug Involvement) and J (Criminal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing, which was held on April 12, 2024. On August 1, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, he requests reconsideration of the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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 security clearance eligibility is sustainable.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-01694 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board