A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-02655.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 11, 2015 · 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 Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's appeal included new evidence of abstaining from alcohol, which was not considered due to the lack of a claim of harmful error. The decision was affirmed by the Appeal Board.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge.
- The new evidence presented on appeal was not considered by the Board.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 21 Criminal Conductraised
- AG ¶ 22 Alcohol Consumptionraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2014-07-22
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2015-01-22
- Decision date
- 2015-03-11
Cite for
- Denial Based on Alcohol Consumption and Criminal Conduct Under Guidelines G and J
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error 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 denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline G and Guideline J. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error and presented new evidence that was not permissible for consideration on 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 G; Guideline J DIGEST: Applicant relies on new evidence which the Board cannot consider. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-02655.a1 DATE: 03/11/2015 DATE: March 11, 2015 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-02655
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On July 22, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On January 22, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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 contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, his submissions contain new evidence in the form statements that he has abstained from the use of alcohol since receiving the Judge’s adverse decision, and is now seeking help through one of the Alcohol Anonymous (AA) meetings offered in his community. He also explains why he had not previously sought help for his alcohol problem. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board