Loading case…

ISCR 10-05756.a1: Guideline E security clearance appeal, denied (2012) · CASE

ISCR Case 10-05756.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-05756.a1

Apr 26, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate harmful error in the prior proceedings, a disqualifying condition under E2.A2.1.

The Appeal Board affirmed this denial. Their decision highlighted that their authority is specifically limited to reviewing cases where an allegation of harmful error has been made. Since the applicant did not successfully demonstrate such an error, the Board found no basis to overturn the initial decision.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, as the applicant did not meet the necessary criteria for demonstrating a reviewable error in the previous stages of the process.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1raisedPersonal Conduct

Key rule quoted

“New hearings are only granted when there has been a showing that a party was prejudiced by a significant defect in the prior proceeding, such as a denial of a fundamental right.”
ISCR Case No. 06-15508 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 21, 2007)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedAug 16, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 9, 2012
Decision dateApr 26, 2012

Cite for

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error
Limited Authority of the Appeal Board in Reviewing Cases
Criteria for Granting New Hearings in Security Clearance Cases

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 his request for a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline E. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan (Chair)
Jeffrey D. Billett
James E. Moody

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 E DIGEST: The Appeal Board’s authority is limited. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-05756.a1 DATE: 04/26/2012 DATE: April 26, 2012 In Re: ------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-05756

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 August 16, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On January 9, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Our authority to review a case is limited to those in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error based upon the record that was before him. Directive ¶ E3.1.21. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.09-06672 (App. Bd. Mar. 18, 2011).1 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 To the extent that Applicant is seeking a new hearing, he has not demonstrated a justification for such a remedy. New hearings are only granted when there has been a showing that a party was prejudiced by a significant defect in the prior proceeding, such as a denial of a fundamental right. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-15508 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 21, 2007).