CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-01169.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-01169.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-01169.a1

Apr 14, 2011· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The denial stemmed from concerns regarding potential foreign influence exerted by his parents.

During the appeal process, the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's initial decision to deny the clearance. Additionally, new evidence presented by the applicant concerning his parents' visa approval was not considered by the appeals board.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied, upholding the original decision to deny the applicant a security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG BraisedForeign Influence

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 9, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 20, 2011
Decision dateApr 14, 2011

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
Requirement to Assert Harmful Error for Successful Appeal

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 was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied their request for a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline B. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision, leading the Board to affirm the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleges no harmful error in the Judge’s decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board cannot consider new evidence presented by the Applicant on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael D. Hipple
Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields

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 DIGEST: Applicant alleges no harmful error in the Judge’s decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-01169.a1 DATE: 04/14/2011 DATE: April 12, 2011 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-01169

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 June 9, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On January 20, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mark Harvey 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 new evidence, in the form of a statement by the Applicant which indicates that subsequent to the Judge’s issuance of the decision in this case, Applicant’s parents received approval of their request for a visa to enter the United States, as well as their passports, and they are preparing to travel the United States in a month or so. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board