A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 07-12013.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 10, 2008 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, sought a security clearance but was denied based on security concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision. The ruling was maintained due to the lack of allegations of error by the applicant.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision.
- The Appeal Board's authority is limited and does not allow for de novo review.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- J Criminal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board’s authority is limited. The Board does not review a case de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2008-03-10
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2008-09-16
- Decision date
- 2008-12-10
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Importance of Asserting Harmful Error for Successful Appeals
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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied their request for a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline J. The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error, leading the Board to affirm the denial of the security clearance.
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
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline J DIGEST: The Appeal Board’s authority is limited. The Board does not review a case de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-12013.a1 DATE: 12/10/2008 DATE: December 10, 2008 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-12013
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 March 10, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 16, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. It does not review a case 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin 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