CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-10821.a1 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date3/29/2012
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 10-10821.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jeffrey D. Billett, Michael Y. Ra'anan, Jean E. Smallin
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 10-10821.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-10821.a1

Mar 29, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant appealed this decision.

However, the appeal was not based on an assertion that the judge made a harmful error during the initial review. Instead, the applicant simply disagreed with the judge's conclusion regarding the security clearance.

Because the Board's authority to review appeals is limited to cases where harmful error is alleged, and no such error was asserted by the applicant, the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline EappliedPersonal Conduct
Guideline GappliedAlcohol Consumption
Guideline HappliedDrug Involvement

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 issuedApr 8, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 10, 2012Applicant requested adjudication on the written record.
Decision dateMar 29, 2012

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was from a denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guidelines G, H, and E. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge and simply disagreed with the conclusion. The Board affirmed the denial as no harmful error was alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJoan Caton Anthony — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge, and the Board's authority is limited to reviewing cases where harmful error is claimed.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
Jean E. Smallin

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 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

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 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