CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-09400.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-09400.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-09400.a1

May 20, 2010· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Specifically, disqualifying conditions G2 and E2 were raised.

The applicant appealed this decision, but the appeal was ultimately denied. The Board affirmed the adverse decision because the applicant's appeal brief did not assert any harmful error in the initial determination.

Furthermore, the Board does not conduct a de novo review, meaning it cannot consider new evidence presented for the first time during the appeal process. As a result, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G2raisedAlcohol Consumption
E2raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 23, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 31, 2010Applicant requested decision on written record.
Decision dateMay 20, 2010Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations on the Board's Review Authority
Pro Se Representation in Security Clearance Appeals

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 after the Administrative Judge denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline G and Guideline E. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error, and new evidence could not be considered.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip S. Howe — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contained no assertion of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal brief, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
Jean E. Smallin

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 G; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contained no assertion of harmful error. The Board does not exercise de novo review. Therefore, the Board cannot consider Applicant’s appeal. Neither can the Board consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-09400.a1 DATE: 05/20/2010 DATE: May 20, 2010 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-09400

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 September 23, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record. On March 31, 2010, after reviewing the record, Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Applicant does offer additional written materials which he asserts support a reversal of the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision. However, the Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. The Board does not review cases de novo. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board