CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-10087.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date12/8/2011
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 10-10087.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, Jean E. Smallin, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 10-10087.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-10087.a1

Dec 8, 2011· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was ultimately denied.

The Board's authority to review security clearance decisions is limited to cases where harmful error on the part of the judge is alleged. In this instance, the applicant did not claim any such error, instead seeking further review of the case.

Because the applicant did not allege harmful error, the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline EappliedPersonal Conduct
Guideline HappliedDrug Involvement
Guideline JappliedCriminal 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 issuedApr 21, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 21, 2011
Decision dateDec 8, 2011

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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. The decision of the Judge denying the security clearance was upheld.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowFrancisco Mendez — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline JGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and since none were presented, the original decision stands.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
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 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

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 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