CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-02655.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-02655.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02655.a1

Mar 11, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance based on concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The initial denial cited disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 21 and AG ¶ 22.

The applicant appealed the decision. However, the appeal did not assert that the judge made a harmful error in the initial ruling. Additionally, the applicant submitted new evidence on appeal, specifically regarding his abstinence from alcohol.

The Appeal Board did not consider this new evidence because the applicant had not claimed harmful error in the original decision. Consequently, the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 21raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 22raisedAlcohol Consumption

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 22, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 22, 2015
Decision dateMar 11, 2015

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to concerns under Guideline G and Guideline J. The Board affirmed the denial as the applicant did not assert any harmful error and presented new evidence that was not permissible for consideration on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any 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 allege any harmful error and submitted new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
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 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

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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