Loading case…

ISCR 17-04019.a1: Guideline E security clearance appeal, denied (2019) · CASE

ISCR Case 17-04019.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-04019.a1

Jan 11, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant appealed the initial adverse decision.

However, the appeal brief submitted by the applicant did not raise any specific allegations of error against the Judge's original decision. The Board's review process is strictly limited to addressing harmful errors that are explicitly alleged by the applicant in their appeal.

Because no such allegations of error were presented, the Board affirmed the Judge's adverse ruling. Consequently, the applicant's request for a security clearance was denied.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

HraisedDrug Involvement and Substance Misuse
EraisedPersonal Conduct

Key rule quoted

“The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.”
ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedJan 3, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 5, 2018
Decision dateJan 11, 2019

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to concerns under Guideline H and Guideline E. The applicant did not raise any allegations of error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as there were no harmful errors alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief raises no allegations of 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. The appeal was based on an explanation of conduct and the impact of the decision, which are not grounds for review.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan (Chair)
James F. Duffy
Charles C. Hale

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 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

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 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