CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-08944.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date11/3/2009
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 08-08944.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · 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 08-08944.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-08944.a1

Nov 3, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under multiple guidelines, specifically Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).

The applicant appealed the denial, but the appeal was unsuccessful. The Appeal Board affirmed the adverse decision because the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, which is a necessary step for the Board to review the case.

Furthermore, the applicant's arguments for mitigation did not demonstrate any error in the judge's initial decision. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG BraisedForeign Influence
AG EraisedPersonal Conduct
AG GraisedAlcohol Consumption
AG HraisedDrug Involvement
AG JraisedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for an alternative interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate error.”
— ISCR Case No. 06-19233 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 28, 2008)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 31, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 11, 2009
Decision dateNov 3, 2009

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Importance of Demonstrating Harmful Error for Appeal
Limitations of the Appeal Board's 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 an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied by the Administrative Judge based on security concerns under multiple guidelines. The applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline HGuideline GGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's brief contained no assertion of harmful error by 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 Board's review is limited to such allegations. The Applicant's disagreement with the Judge's weighing of evidence did not constitute a harmful error.

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 B; Guideline H; Guideline G; Guideline E; Guideline J DIGEST: Applicant’s brief contained no assertion of harmful error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-08944.a1 DATE: 11/03/2009 DATE: November 3, 2009 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-08944

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 March 31, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 11, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief opens with the following language: “I want to first submit that Judge Carol G. Ricciardello did not necessarily do anything wrong that changed the outcome of my case.” Applicant’s appeal brief contains no specific assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge . It does contain his interpretation of the case in mitigation. 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Applicant’s discussion of his case in mitigation has not demonstrated error. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for an alternative interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-19233 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 28, 2008). The Board does not review cases de novo. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, 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