CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-24153.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-24153.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-24153.a1

Apr 11, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Administrative Judge's initial decision to deny the clearance was based on these guidelines.

Upon appeal, the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. Consequently, the appeal board affirmed the original denial, finding no basis to overturn the initial ruling.

The security clearance was ultimately denied, with the decision resting on the applicant's failure to demonstrate any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's application of Guideline H and Guideline E.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

HraisedDrug Involvement
EraisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 26, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 16, 2007
Decision dateApr 11, 2008

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations of Appeal Board Review Authority
Guidance on Drug Involvement and Personal Conduct Concerns

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the Applicant seeking to overturn the denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline H and Guideline E. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — 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 contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Michael D. Hipple
William S. Fields

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 H; Guideline E DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-24153.a1 DATE: 04/11/2008 DATE: April 11, 2008 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-24153

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On April 26, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Applicant’s brief only states: “I am appealing the Administrative Judge’s decision.” Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On August 16, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 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. It does not review cases de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board