A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-03917.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 4, 2020 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline B concerning foreign influence due to family ties in Venezuela. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not challenge the judge's findings regarding his siblings and new evidence about his mother's passing was not considered. The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the lack of allegations of harmful error by the judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not challenge the judge's findings regarding his siblings.
- The appeal board cannot consider new evidence regarding the applicant's mother's passing.
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG B1 Foreign Influenceraised
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 issued
- 2020-03-17
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2020-08-26 Decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2020-11-04
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeal Cases
- Requirement for Alleging Harmful Error for Appeal Consideration
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 a denial of a security clearance based on Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to the Applicant's family ties in Venezuela. The Applicant did not challenge the unfavorable findings regarding his siblings and did not allege any harmful error. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.
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 B DIGEST: In his appeal brief, Applicant notes that his mother passed away shortly before the decision was issued. This information constitutes new evidence that Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s unfavorable findings and conclusions regarding his siblings. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-03917.a1 DATE: 11/04/2020
DATE: November 4, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-03917 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )
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 17, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On August 26, 2020, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant’s mother and three siblings were citizens and residents of Venezuela. The Judge concluded that Applicant failed to mitigate the Guideline B security concerns and found against him on the SOR allegations. In his appeal brief, Applicant notes that his mother passed away shortly before the decision was issued. This information constitutes new evidence that Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s unfavorable findings and conclusions regarding his siblings. 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 sustainable.
Order
The Decision 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