A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 09-97741.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 1, 2011 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge, limiting their review authority.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error by the Judge, limiting the Appeal Board's authority to review the case.
- The original denial by the Administrative Judge was based on security concerns under Guideline E and Guideline B.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- B Foreign Influenceraised
- E Personal Conductraised
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 issued
- 2010-07-07
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2010-11-19
- Decision date
- 2011-02-01
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
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance for the Applicant based on security concerns under Guideline B and Guideline E. The Applicant appealed but did not claim any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
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 ; 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
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