CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07728.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07728.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07728.a1

Jul 6, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). Initially, Guideline C (Foreign Preference) was also raised but was withdrawn during the proceedings.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge. This omission limited the Board's review authority, and the existing concerns under Guideline B were deemed sufficient to uphold the denial.

Therefore, the security clearance was ultimately denied based on foreign influence concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline BraisedForeign Influence

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 issuedMay 12, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 27, 2017
Decision dateJul 6, 2017

Cite For

Limitations on Appeal Board Review Authority Regarding Harmful Error Allegations
Affirmation of Denial Based on Foreign Influence Concerns
Withdrawal of Allegations Under Guideline C During Proceedings

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 his security clearance, arguing that his record was otherwise spotless except for interests in Pakistan. However, he did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the applicant did not provide grounds for a harmful error review.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline C

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not allege any 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 cases where harmful error is claimed.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
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 B; Guideline C DIGEST: 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: 15-07728.a1 DATE: 07/06/2017 DATE: July 6, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07728

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 May 12, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference)1 of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On April 27, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and

FOOTNOTES

1 The Guideline C allegation was subsequently withdrawn. Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal Applicant argues that except for his interests in Pakistan the record for his entire life is “spot less.” He makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge, but requests that the Board review his case. In support of that request he states that perhaps there might be other individuals who hold security clearances that have interests similar to his. 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board