A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-24153.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 11, 2008 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal.
- The appeal board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision based on the lack of allegations of harmful error.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- H Drug Involvementraised
- E Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2007-04-26
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-08-16
- Decision date
- 2008-04-11
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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied their request for a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline H and Guideline E. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in their appeal.
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 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
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