A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-01169.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 14, 2011 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) but was denied due to concerns regarding foreign influence from his parents. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision, and new evidence regarding his parents' visa approval was not considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision.
- New evidence regarding the applicant's parents' visa approval was not considered on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG B Foreign Influenceraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2010-06-09
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2011-01-20
- Decision date
- 2011-04-14
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
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.
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 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
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