A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-05756.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 26, 2012 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) but was denied due to failure to demonstrate harmful error in prior proceedings. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, emphasizing the limited authority to review cases without allegations of harmful error.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not demonstrate harmful error in the prior proceedings.
- The Appeal Board's authority is limited to cases where harmful error is alleged.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- E2.A2.1 Personal Conductraised
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-08-16
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2012-01-09
- Decision date
- 2012-04-26
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
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.
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 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
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).