CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03917.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-03917.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-03917.a1

Nov 4, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance application was denied under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to the applicant's family ties in Venezuela. The applicant, representing himself, did not challenge the judge's initial findings concerning his siblings.

During the appeal process, the applicant presented new evidence regarding his mother's passing; however, the appeal board was unable to consider this information. The board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error on the part of the judge in the initial decision.

Consequently, the appeal was denied, and the security clearance was not granted.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG B1raisedForeign Influence

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 17, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 26, 2020Decision on the written record.
Decision dateNov 4, 2020

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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 Judge's findings regarding his siblings and did not allege any harmful error. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGina L. Marine — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and the new evidence presented was not considered.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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 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 ) )

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 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