CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01694 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01694denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 23-01694

Sep 11, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The initial denial cited Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 24 and AG ¶ 25.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. This was because the applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error committed by the judge in the initial decision.

Consequently, the Appeal Board found no basis to overturn the original ruling, and the security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 24raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 25raisedDrug Involvement

Procedural Posture

Decision dateSep 11, 2024

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline J

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, making the denial of security clearance eligibility sustainable.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
James B. Norman

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. 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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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