CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-05338.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-05338.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-05338.a1

Mar 21, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline G, which addresses alcohol consumption. The appeal board affirmed this denial, concluding that the applicant's presented mitigating evidence was insufficient to resolve the government's security concerns.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition G.2.a, indicating a pattern of alcohol consumption that is chronic and/or cannot be controlled. While Mitigating Condition G.3 was considered, suggesting that the problem is under control and the individual is committed to abstinence or moderate consumption, it was ultimately not enough to overcome the established security risks.

The board found that the applicant's efforts to mitigate the concerns regarding his alcohol use did not adequately address the underlying issues, leading to the final decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.2.araisedAlcohol-related Incidents

Mitigating

G.3rejectedRehabilitation and Other Evidence of ReformThe judge found the evidence of rehabilitation insufficient to mitigate the concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 11, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 13, 2007
Decision dateMar 21, 2008

Cite For

Insufficient Mitigating Evidence Under Guideline G
Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations of Appeal Board Review Authority

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial, finding that the Judge appropriately considered and analyzed the mitigating evidence presented.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowChristopher Graham — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline G

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Judge's findings were supported by the record.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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

KEYWORD: Guideline G DIGEST: A review of the decision indicates the Judge considered Applicant’s mitigating evidence, analyzed it appropriately and explained why it was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-05338.a1 DATE: 03/21/2008 DATE: March 21, 2008 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-05338

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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 July 11, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the Applicant’s brief could be construed as challenging the Judge’s finding that the Director of Applicant’s alcohol evaluation program was not a duly qualified medical professional or a licensed clinical social worker. However, based on the record, that finding is sustainable. Although the Director’s curriculum vitae recited that he had multiple degrees and had attended a number of training courses, there was nothing in it that indicated that he was a physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist or licensed clinical social worker. See App. Ex. F. Moreover, the statement provided by the Director about Applicant’s participation in the program only indicated that Applicant had benefitted from it and “increased his understanding of the need to avoid alcohol . . .” It expressed no opinion as to Applicant’s current circumstances or future prospects insofar as the use of alcohol was concerned. basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On November 13, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Christopher Graham denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a one-sentence summary of the favorable evidence presented at the hearing. A review of the record indicates that the Judge considered Applicant’s mitigating evidence, analyzed the case under the relevant conditions and factors, and reasonably explained why that evidence was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. The Board does not review cases de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chair, 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