A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-01788
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 25, 2024 · Administrative Judge James B. Norman · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The Administrative Judge found in favor of the applicant on Guideline B but denied eligibility on Guideline H. The appeal was affirmed due to the applicant's failure to assert specific errors in the judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert specific errors regarding the denial under Guideline H.
- The appeal board does not review cases de novo and requires allegations of harmful error to overturn a decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 25 Drug Involvementraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 26 Rehabilitationnoted
- AG ¶ 27 Evidence of Changenoted
Key rule quoted
“An applicant’s disagreement with the judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2023-12-19
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2024-09-25
- Decision date
- 2024-11-25
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Specific Error Assertion in Appeal
- Limitations of Appeal Board Review Process
- Interpretation of Evidence Not Sufficient for Overturning a Judge's Decision
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 concerns under Guideline B and Guideline H. The Applicant did not assert specific errors in the Judge's decision but expressed disagreement with the conclusions. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error alleged.
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. 23-01788
)
) 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: November 25, 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 December 19, 2023, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On September 25, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales denied Applicant security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on the Guideline B allegation. On appeal, Applicant makes no specific assertion of error on the part of the Judge regarding the Guideline H allegations. Instead, he implies a disagreement with Judge’s conclusions. 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.
Applicant is advocating for an alternative weighing of the evidence. However, an applicant’s disagreement with the judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. E.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). Because Applicant has not made an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is sustainable.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-01788 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