CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-22986.a1 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date11/26/2008
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 06-22986.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, Jean E. Smallin, Michael D. Hipple
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline IPsychological Conditions · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 06-22986.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-22986.a1

Nov 26, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline I (Psychological Conditions), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant appealed the denial.

The appeal was subsequently denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, the applicant included new evidence with her appeal that had not been presented or considered during the original hearing.

The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal, and without demonstrating an error in the initial ruling, the original denial of the security clearance was upheld.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline JraisedCriminal Conduct
Guideline IraisedPsychological Conditions
Guideline EraisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“An appealing party must demonstrate error on the part of the Judge.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 9, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 25, 2008
Decision dateNov 26, 2008

Cite For

Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Requirements for Demonstrating Error by the Judge
Authority of the Board Regarding Probationary Clearance Requests

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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on security concerns under multiple guidelines. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline IGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Michael D. Hipple
Jean E. Smallin

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

SYNOPSIS

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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

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).

ORDER

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