A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-04019.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 11, 2019 · 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 H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The appeal was denied as the applicant raised no allegations of error against the Judge's decision, leading to the affirmation of the adverse ruling.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal brief did not raise any allegations of error against the Judge's decision.
- The Board's review is limited to harmful errors alleged by the applicant, which were not present in this case.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- H Drug Involvement and Substance Misuseraised
- E Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-01-03
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-11-05
- Decision date
- 2019-01-11
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Error Is Alleged
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Impact of Unfavorable Decisions Not Considered in Appeals
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 Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline H and Guideline E. The Applicant's appeal did not raise any allegations of error, leading the Board to affirm the Judge's decision.
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 E; Guideline H DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegations of error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-04019.a1 DATE: 01/11/2019 DATE: January 11, 2019 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-04019
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 January 3, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On November 5, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegations of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains an explanation for his conduct alleged in the SOR, indicates his former employer is willing to rehire him if his security clearance is reinstated, and discusses the impact of the adverse decision on him. The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015).
The Board does not review cases 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 such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board