CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-02360.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-02360.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02360.a1

Apr 20, 2016· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption. The appeal was ultimately denied.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to assert harmful error by the judge in his appeal brief. This omission significantly limited the Board's review authority, as appeals are restricted to allegations of harmful error.

Furthermore, corrective actions taken by the applicant after the initial hearing were not considered new evidence for the appeal. Consequently, with no harmful error asserted and new evidence inadmissible, the Board upheld the original decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.2.araisedAlcohol-related Incidents

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 issuedJan 21, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 21, 2016
Decision dateApr 20, 2016

Cite For

Limitations on Appeal Regarding Harmful Error Assertions
The Inability to Introduce New Evidence During an Appeal
The Importance of Asserting Harmful Error for Successful Appeals

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 his request for a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline G. The Applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the Judge, leading the Board to affirm the decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline G

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and new evidence cannot be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 G DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error by the Judge. It contains a statement by the Applicant as to corrective actions he has taken since the hearing. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-02360.a1 DATE: 04/20/2016 DATE: April 20, 2016 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-02360

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 21, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On January 21, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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. Rather, it contains a statement by the Applicant as to corrective actions he has taken since the hearing to address circumstances referenced in the Judge’s decision. The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, the Board does not review a case de novo. 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 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board