Loading case…

ISCR 07-16841.a2: security clearance hearing, denied (2009) · CASE

ISCR Case 07-16841.a2denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-16841.a2

deniedFeb 24, 2009· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· hearing

Summary

An applicant, represented by counsel, sought reconsideration of a security clearance denial. The Appeal Board, however, found no persuasive reason to alter its previous adverse decision and affirmed the denial.

The Board determined that the applicant failed to articulate a compelling reason for reconsideration. Specifically, the Board found no error in its prior interpretation of the state anti-deficiency statute. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support a different outcome regarding mitigation.

Consequently, the Appeal Board concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Board would reach a different conclusion upon reconsideration, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the applicant was denied

The applicant failed to articulate a persuasive reason for reconsideration.
The Board found no error in its previous interpretation of the state anti-deficiency statute.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support a different outcome regarding mitigation.

Key rule quoted

“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 DateFeb 24, 2009
Request for Reconsideration FiledFeb 5, 2009
Original Decision DateDec 19, 2008

Cite for

Discretion of the Appeal Board Regarding Reconsideration Requests
Lack of a Right to Reconsideration in Security Clearance Cases
Requirements for Demonstrating Persuasive Reasons for Reconsideration

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E; Guideline J DIGEST: There is no right to reconsideration. Applicant has failed to articulate a persuasive reason to conclude that, were the Board to reconsider its decision, it would a different results. Applicant’s request denied. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 07-16841.a2 DATE: 02/24/2009 DATE: February 24, 2009 In Re: ------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-16841

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

ON APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Sheldon Cohen, Esq. The Board issued an Appeal Board Decision in this case on December 19, 2008. On February 5, 2009, Applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of this decision. The Board has inherent authority to entertain requests 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). In support of his request, Applicant contends that the Board erred in its interpretation of the state anti-deficiency statute and that it erred in holding that the record did not support the Judge’s favorable conclusion as to mitigation. The Board has considered Applicant’s motion and accompanying “Reply Brief. ” Applicant has failed to articulate a persuasive reason to conclude that, were the Board to reconsider its decision, it would reach a different result. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.03-21012 (App. Bd. Sep. 20 2005). Accordingly, Applicant’s request is DENIED. Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board