ISCR Case No. 06-22986.a1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY When unredacted this document contains information EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA Exemption 6 applies KEYWORD: Guideline j; Guideline I; Guideline E DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant has not demonstrated error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-22986.a1 DATE: 11/26/2008 DATE: November 26, 2008 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-22986

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On May 9, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline I (Psychological Conditions), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 25, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. On appeal, Applicant restates portions of her hearing testimony and resubmits some of the documents she submitted at the hearing. However, Applicant also includes new evidence in her appeal which was not presented at the hearing. The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review a case de novo. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-18998 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 9, 2007). An appealing party must demonstrate error on the part of the Judge. In this case, Applicant has not demonstrated such error. Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s decision is sustainable. In her appeal, Applicant includes a request for a probationary clearance. The Board has no authority to grant such a request. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-22044 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 28, 2008).

The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Chief Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board