A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-06419.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 13, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns regarding her history of marijuana use under Guideline H. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not raise any claims of harmful error, leading to the affirmation of the initial denial.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.
- The appeal Board's authority is limited to cases where harmful error is alleged.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- H Drug Involvementraised
Key rule quoted
“Our authority to review a case is limited to those in which a party has raised an issue of harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-07-01
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-06-30 Decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2016-09-13
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Claims
- Limitations on Appeal Authority Regarding Harmful Error
- One-year Reapplication Bar Following Denial of Security Clearance
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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to drug involvement under Guideline H. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision to deny the clearance.
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 H DIGEST: Applicant has raised no issue on harmful error. Our authority to review a case is limited to those in which a party has raised an issue of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-06419.a1 DATE: 09/13/2016 DATE: September 13, 2016 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06419
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 1, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On June 30, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe 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, Applicant cites her honesty and regret about her history of marijuana use. She asks when she is eligible to reapply for a clearance. An applicant whose clearance has been finally denied is barred from reapplication for one year from the date of the initial unfavorable clearance decision. In this case, that means Applicant cannot reapply until after June 30, 2017. The Board does not review a case de novo. 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 Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board