Loading case…

ISCR 14-06419.a1: Guideline H security clearance appeal, denied (2016) · CASE

ISCR Case 14-06419.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06419.a1

Sep 13, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance primarily due to concerns under Guideline H, which addresses drug involvement. The denial stemmed from her history of marijuana use.

Upon appeal, the Board affirmed the initial denial. The applicant did not assert any claims of harmful error on the part of the Judge in the initial decision. The appeal Board's authority is specifically limited to reviewing cases where such harmful error is alleged.

Because no harmful error was claimed, the Board lacked the grounds to overturn the original decision, resulting in the denial of the applicant's security clearance.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

HraisedDrug Involvement

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 issuedJul 1, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 30, 2016Decision on the written record.
Decision dateSep 13, 2016

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as there were no grounds for harmful error alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip S. Howe denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised no issue on harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and since none were raised, the decision stands.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan (Chair)
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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 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

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 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