CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-00416.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date5/21/2012
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 11-00416.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jeffrey D. Billett, Michael Y. Ra'anan, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline CForeign Preference · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · 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 11-00416.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-00416.a1

May 21, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant appealed the decision.

During the appeal, the applicant did not assert that the judge made any harmful error in the initial denial. Instead, the applicant introduced new facts that were not part of the original record. The Board, however, is unable to consider new facts during an appeal and does not review cases de novo.

Consequently, the Board affirmed the judge's original decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

BappliedForeign Influence
CappliedForeign Preference
EappliedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 8, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 15, 2012
Decision dateMay 21, 2012

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied by the Administrative Judge due to security concerns under multiple guidelines. The applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline CGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not assert any harmful error, and the Board's review is limited to alleged harmful errors. The Board does not review cases de novo and cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
William S. Fields

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 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

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 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