Loading case…

ISCR 06-25684.a2: Guideline G security clearance hearing, denied (2008) · CASE

ISCR Case 06-25684.a2denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-25684.a2

deniedJun 10, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· hearing

Summary

This case concerns an applicant, represented by counsel, who sought reconsideration of a previously denied security clearance under Guideline G, pertaining to Alcohol Consumption. The applicant's request for reconsideration was ultimately denied.

The Appeal Board determined that the applicant did not present a persuasive reason to alter the Board's original decision. Consequently, the request to reopen the record to introduce additional evidence was also denied.

The Board found no compelling grounds to change the prior resolution or to allow for the submission of new evidence, leading to the denial of the applicant's request for reconsideration and upholding the original denial of the security clearance.

Why the applicant was denied

The applicant did not articulate a persuasive reason to change the Board's resolution.
The request to reopen the record for additional evidence was denied.

Key rule quoted

“There is no right to reconsideration; the Board has the sole discretion to decide whether to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider one of its decisions.”
ISCR Case No. 98-0621 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 1999)

Procedural posture

Appeal Board Decision IssuedMar 21, 2008
Request for Reconsideration FiledApr 14, 2008
Response from Department CounselApr 17, 2008
Decision DateJun 10, 2008

Cite for

Denial of Reconsideration Requests Under Guideline G
Lack of Persuasive Reasons for Changing Prior Decisions
Discretion of the Board in Reconsideration Matters

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant's request for reconsideration regarding Guideline G was denied. The Board found that the applicant failed to provide a persuasive reason to change the previous adverse decision, affirming the concerns related to alcohol consumption.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline G DIGEST: Applicant has failed to articulate a persuasive reason to change the Board’s resolution of this case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-25684.a2 DATE: 06/10/2008 DATE: June 10, 2008 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-25684

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

ON APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Douglas J. Monaghan, Esq. On March 21, 2008, the Board issued an Appeal Board Decision in this case. On April 14, 2008, Applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of this decision. Department Counsel submitted a response on April 17, 2008. The Board has inherent authority to entertain a request to reconsider its decisions. However, there is no right to reconsideration; the Board has the sole discretion to decide whether to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider one of its decisions. See ISCR Case No. 98-0621 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 1999). Applicant requests that the Board reconsider its prior decision and grant him a security clearance, arguing that he had successfully mitigated the Guideline G security concerns in his case. In the alternative Applicant requests that the Board direct that the hearing be reopened so he can present additional evidence. The Board has considered Applicant’s brief and Department Counsel’s reply brief in light of our prior decision. Applicant has failed to articulate a persuasive reason to change the Board’s resolution of his case or to allow a reopening of the record. See ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 1 (App. Bd. Sep. 20, 2005). Accordingly Applicant’s request is denied. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board