A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 11-00416.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 21, 2012 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), C (Foreign Preference), and E (Personal Conduct). The Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge and provided new facts not in the original record, which the Board could not consider.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge.
- The Board does not review cases de novo and affirmed the judge's decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- B Foreign Influenceapplied
- C Foreign Preferenceapplied
- E Personal Conductapplied
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-09-08
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2012-03-15
- Decision date
- 2012-05-21
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Foreign Influence and Preference Under Guidelines B and C
- Limitations on the Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
- The Necessity of Alleging Harmful Error for Successful Appeals
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 from a denial of a security clearance based on security concerns under multiple guidelines. The applicant, representing himself, did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as the appeal did not present any grounds for reversal.
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 B; Guideline C DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-00416.a1 DATE: 05/21/2012 DATE: May 21, 2012 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-00416
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 September 8, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On March 15, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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. He simply restates numerous facts about his case, including the circumstances of his relatives in Iran, his family situation and facts about his career. Some of these representations are not contained in 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board