A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-03646.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 28, 2011 · 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 Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption), J (Criminal Conduct), and E (Personal Conduct). The applicant conceded that the evidence against him was insurmountable and requested an interim clearance, which the Board cannot grant. The decision was affirmed as the applicant did not allege harmful error against the Administrative Judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant conceded that the evidence against him was insurmountable.
- The Board has no authority to grant an interim clearance.
- The applicant did not allege harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- Guideline G Alcohol Consumptionraised
- Guideline J Criminal Conductraised
- Guideline E Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-04-08
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2011-10-13
- Decision date
- 2011-12-28
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Based on Insurmountable Evidence
- Authority of the Board Regarding Interim Clearances
- Insufficient Argument for Favorable Application of Mitigating Conditions
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 concerns under multiple guidelines. The Applicant conceded the evidence against him was strong and requested an interim clearance. The Board affirmed the denial, stating that no harmful error was alleged and it lacks authority to grant interim clearances.
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 G; Guideline J DIGEST: The Board has no authority to grant an interim, conditional or probationary clearance. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-03646.a1 DATE: 12/28/2011 DATE: December 28, 2011 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-03646
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 April 8, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On October 13, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In his appeal brief, Applicant states: “After further review of this case and the Judge’s decision I have conceded that the evidence against me is insurmountable.” He then summarizes the favorable evidence and asks that the Board to grant him an interim clearance. The Board has no authority to grant an interim, conditional or probationary clearance. See, e,g, ISCR Case No. 02-18434 at 5 (App, Bd. Aug. 13, 2004). Its 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. To the extent that Applicant’s brief could be construed as arguing that the record evidence would support a favorable application of the mitigating conditions, such an argument is insufficient to demonstrate that the Judge erred. The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07139 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2011). 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; Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board