CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03915.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03915.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03915.a1

Mar 9, 2018· 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 applicant appealed this decision.

However, the appeal was subsequently denied because the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. The Appeal Board's review process is strictly limited to cases where such harmful error is specifically alleged.

As a result, the initial denial of the security clearance was affirmed, and the applicant's appeal was unsuccessful.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline GraisedAlcohol Consumption
Guideline JraisedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 10, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 29, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Candace Le’i Garcia.
Decision dateMar 9, 2018Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations of Appeal Board Review Authority
Relevance of Guidelines G and J 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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 Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The decision stands as issued by the Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, which is necessary for the Board to review the case.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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 G; Guideline J DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-03915.a1 DATE: 03/09/2018 DATE: March 09, 2018 In Re: -------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-03915

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 March 10, 2017, 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 decision on the written record. On November 29, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Candace Le’i Garcia denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to 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, it contains a statement explaining the corrective actions that he has taken and his commitment to change his life. 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. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board