CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 04-09429.a2 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 04-09429.a2

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date8/6/2007
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 04-09429.a1) →See the hearing decision (Case 04-09429.h1) →
Participants
Judge: Michael D. Hipple, James E. Moody, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: Braden M. Murphy
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought reconsideration of a prior decision regarding his security clearance application, which involved allegations under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant submitted a request for clarification and reconsideration on July 12, 2007, following the Board's decision issued on July 2, 2007.
In his request, the applicant identified three alleged errors in the Board's decision. The Board reviewed these claims and found that only one of the contentions was valid; however, it determined that the identified error was a typographical mistake and did not affect the outcome of the case. The applicant's request for reconsideration was ultimately denied.
The administrative judges concluded that while they had the authority to reconsider their decisions, there was no obligation to do so. They exercised their discretion and found that the typographical error was harmless, leading to the denial of the applicant's request for reconsideration.
Guidelines EvaluatedNo guidelines explicitly mapped for this case.
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-09429.a2

deniedAug 6, 2007· Hon. Michael D. Hipple· hearing

Summary

An applicant, represented by counsel, sought reconsideration of a previously denied security clearance. The Board, exercising its sole discretion, reviewed the request, noting that there is no inherent right to reconsideration.

The applicant identified several alleged errors in the initial denial. However, the Board found only one of these identified errors to be meritorious. Despite this finding, the Board determined that the error was harmless and did not affect the original decision.

Consequently, the Board denied the request for reconsideration, upholding the initial denial of the security clearance under the cited guidelines.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The Board found only one of the applicant's identified errors to be meritorious, but it was deemed harmless.
There is no right to reconsideration; the Board has sole discretion to decide whether to exercise its authority to reconsider.

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”
— ISCR Case No. 98-0621 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 1999)

Procedural Posture

Decision DateAug 6, 2007
Request for Reconsideration FiledJul 12, 2007
Response from Department CounselJul 23, 2007
Initial Decision DateJul 2, 2007

Cite For

Inherent Authority of the Board to Entertain Requests for Reconsideration
Discretion of the Board Regarding Reconsideration Requests
No Right to Reconsideration of Decisions by the Board

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.