A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 03-23504.a2
DeniedReversed on appealDecided Feb 22, 2008 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Hearing
Reversed on appeal. The decision below was not the last word. Read the appeal decision for what followed.
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, represented by counsel, sought reconsideration of a prior denial of security clearance based on Guidelines E, M, and J. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, finding that the record did not support a favorable assessment of the applicant's credibility and that mitigating conditions were adequately considered in the original decision. The request for reconsideration was denied as the Board found no basis for a favorable outcome.
Why the applicant was denied
- The Board found no basis for a favorable assessment of the applicant's credibility.
- The record as a whole did not support a favorable decision.
- Mitigating conditions were adequately considered in the original decision.
Key rule quoted
“The Board has inherent authority to entertain a request to reconsider its decisions. However, there is no right to reconsideration; the Board has the sole discretion to decide whether to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider one of its decisions.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- Decision date
- 2008-02-22
Cite for
- Authority of the Board to Reconsider Decisions
- Discretion of the Board in Reconsideration Requests
- Credibility Assessments 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.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
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 M; Guideline J DIGEST: The Board has inherent authority to entertain a request for reconsideration, however, there is no right to reconsideration. The Board’s prior decision embraced the subject or mitigation when it concluded that the record as a whole does not support a favorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 03-23504.a2 DATE: 02/22/2008 DATE: February 22, 2008 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 03-23504
Appeal Board Decision
ON APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James F. Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Rebecca L. Saitta, Esq. See, e. g., Government’s Appeal Brief at 15: “The Administrative Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law because he substituted a credibility determination for record evidence.” On December 12, 2007, the Board issued an Appeal Board Decision in Applicant’s case. On January 9, 2008, Applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of this decision. Department Counsel submitted a response on January 24, 2008. The Board has inherent authority to entertain a request to reconsider its decisions. However, there is no right to reconsideration; the Board has the sole discretion to decide whether to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider one of its decisions. See ISCR Case No. 98-0621 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 1999). Applicant raises the following issue in his request for reconsideration: whether the Board failed to consider appropriate mitigating conditions in its analysis of Applicant’s case. Applicant requests that the Board either affirm the Judge’s decision or remand the case to the Judge to evaluate whether Applicant has established mitigation. However, consideration of possible mitigating conditions is fairly embraced in the Board’s analysis of the issues raised in Department Counsel’s original appeal brief and in the Board’s conclusion that the record as a whole does not sustain a favorable decision. The Board addressed the Judge’s favorable assessment of Applicant’s credibility in its earlier decision. In light of that discussion and other evidence explicitly discussed in the Board decision, it is not plausible to entertain the possibility that a Judge could reasonably find Applicant’s conduct mitigated on this record. Accordingly, Applicant’s request for the Board to affirm the Judge’s decision or remand the case is denied. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board