Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

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

ISCR Case No. 08-08944.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Nov 3, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under multiple guidelines, including Foreign Influence and Drug Involvement. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, leading to the affirmation of the adverse decision.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant did not assert harmful error by the Judge, which is necessary for the Appeal Board to review the case.
  • The applicant's arguments for mitigation did not demonstrate error in the Judge's decision.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • AG B Foreign Influenceraised
  • AG E Personal Conductraised
  • AG G Alcohol Consumptionraised
  • AG H Drug Involvementraised
  • AG J Criminal Conductraised

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 issued
2009-03-31
Answer filed
Hearing held
2009-09-11
Decision date
2009-11-03

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

The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on security concerns under multiple guidelines. The Applicant's appeal brief did not assert any harmful error by the Judge. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no basis for reversal.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

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

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