A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-10087.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 8, 2011 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The appeal was based on a desire for further review rather than alleging any error by the judge, leading to the affirmation of the denial.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error on the part of the Judge.
- The Board's authority is limited to cases where harmful error is alleged.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- Guideline E Personal Conductapplied
- Guideline H Drug Involvementapplied
- Guideline J Criminal Conductapplied
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
- 2011-04-21
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2011-09-21
- Decision date
- 2011-12-08
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Security Concerns Under Multiple Guidelines Leading to Denial
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 Applicant appealed the denial of her security clearance, not due to any perceived error by the Administrative Judge, but seeking further review of her case. The Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error.
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 H; Guideline J; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant appealed, not because she feels the Judge did anything wrong, but because she would still like a further review of her case. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-10087.a1 DATE: 12/08/2011 DATE: December 8, 2011 In Re: -------------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-10087
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 April 21, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 21, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In her brief, Applicant states that she is not appealing because she feels that the Judge did anything wrong, but because she would still like a further review of her case. She believes that if she had done a better job on the application process the outcome of her case may have been different. Therefore, she requests an opportunity to “re-plea” her case and submit additional evidence. The Board cannot 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board