CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-09986.a2 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 10-09986.a2

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date1/27/2012
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 10-09986.a1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jeffrey D. Billett, James E. Moody, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but faced issues under Guideline C (criminal conduct) and Guideline B (foreign influence). The core allegations in the Statement of Reasons included concerns regarding the applicant's past criminal behavior and potential foreign connections that could pose a risk to national security.
In the proceedings, the applicant submitted a motion for reconsideration of a prior adverse decision issued by the Appeal Board. The applicant did not provide compelling reasons to suggest that a reconsideration would yield a different outcome. The Department Counsel submitted a Reply Brief, reinforcing the position that the applicant's arguments were insufficient.
The administrative judges ruled to deny the applicant's motion for reconsideration, affirming the previous adverse decision. They stated that there is no inherent right to reconsideration and that the applicant failed to demonstrate a persuasive reason for the board to alter its earlier conclusion. The decision underscored the board's discretion in such matters and the lack of new evidence or arguments that would warrant a different result.
Guidelines EvaluatedNo guidelines explicitly mapped for this case.
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-09986.a2

deniedJan 27, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· hearing

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, sought reconsideration of a previous adverse security clearance decision. The Appeal Board reviewed the motion but ultimately found that the applicant did not present a persuasive reason to alter the original ruling.

Consequently, the Board affirmed the prior adverse decision without modification. The applicant failed to articulate sufficient grounds for a different outcome, leading to the denial of his motion for reconsideration.

The security clearance was therefore denied, upholding the initial determination based on the cited guidelines.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to articulate a persuasive reason for reconsideration.
The Appeal Board affirmed the previous adverse decision without finding grounds for a different outcome.

Key Rule Quoted

“there is no right to reconsideration; we have the sole discretion to decide whether to exercise our inherent authority to reconsider one of our decisions.”
— ISCR Case No. 08-09704 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Apr. 21, 2010)

Procedural Posture

Decision DateJan 27, 2012
Initial Decision DateDec 15, 2011Prior adverse decision issued.

Cite For

Discretionary Nature of Reconsideration Requests
Lack of Right to Reconsideration in Security Clearance Cases
Requirements for Articulating 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.