CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-03646.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-03646.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-03646.a1

Dec 28, 2011· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).

The applicant conceded that the evidence against him was insurmountable. He requested an interim clearance, which the Board does not have the authority to grant.

The denial was affirmed because the applicant did not allege any harmful error on the part of the Administrative Judge.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline GraisedAlcohol Consumption
Guideline JraisedCriminal Conduct
Guideline EraisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.”
— ISCR Case No. 09-07139 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2011)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 8, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 13, 2011
Decision dateDec 28, 2011

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied by an Administrative Judge due to concerns under multiple guidelines. The applicant conceded the evidence against him was strong and requested an interim clearance. The Board affirmed the denial, noting that no harmful error was alleged and that it lacked authority to grant interim clearances.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline JGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not allege any specific harmful error by the judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the presence of some mitigating evidence did not compel a favorable decision.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
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 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

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 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