A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-10821.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 29, 2012 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guidelines E, G, and H. The appeal was based on a disagreement with the judge's conclusion rather than an assertion of harmful error, leading to the affirmation of the denial by the Board.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the Judge.
- The Board's authority to review is limited to cases where harmful error is alleged.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- Guideline E Personal Conductapplied
- Guideline G Alcohol Consumptionapplied
- Guideline H Drug Involvementapplied
Key rule quoted
“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-04-08
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2012-01-10 Applicant requested adjudication on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2012-03-29
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations of the Board's Review Authority
- Importance of Established Record in Appeal Process
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 her request for a security clearance based on security concerns under Guidelines G, H, and E. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision and simply disagreed with the conclusion. The Board affirmed the decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error.
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 H; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-10821.a1 DATE: 03/29/2012 DATE: March 29, 2012 In Re: ------------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-10821
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 H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested that her case be adjudicated on the written record. On January 10, 2012, after the close of the record, Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony 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 makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. She states affirmatively that she is not “accusing the Judge of doing anything wrong.” She states simply that she disagrees with the final conclusion and then articulates at some length why she disagrees and why she believes her case should be adjudicated favorably. Many of Applicant’s representations in her brief, as well as numerous attachments to the brief, contain facts not part of the record below. The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. The Board does not review cases de novo. 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board