CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-97741.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-97741.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-97741.a1

Feb 1, 2011· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Administrative Judge initially issued the denial based on these security concerns.

The applicant appealed this decision. However, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial because the applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. This omission limited the Appeal Board's authority to conduct a full review of the case.

Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was upheld, with the original concerns under Guideline B and Guideline E remaining the basis for the decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

BraisedForeign Influence
EraisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 7, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 19, 2010
Decision dateFeb 1, 2011

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority When No Harmful Error Is Claimed
Affirmation of Denial Based on Security Concerns Under Guideline E and Guideline B
Importance of Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals for Security Clearance Denials

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 their request for a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline B and Guideline E. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision as the applicant's brief contained no claims of harmful error. The Board's authority is limited to cases where harmful error is alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's brief contains no claim of harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Appeal Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Judge, limiting the Board's authority to review the case.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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 ; Guideline b DIGEST: Applicant’s brief contains no claim of harmful error by the Judge. The Appeal Board’s authority is limited. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-97741.a1 DATE: 02/01/2011 DATE: February 1, 2011 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-07741

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 July 7, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On November 19, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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. 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board