CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00812.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00812.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00812.a1

Dec 29, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). These concerns primarily stemmed from a 2015 arrest for marijuana possession, which occurred after the applicant had already been granted a security clearance.

During the initial hearing, the Administrative Judge found that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support any mitigating conditions for the disqualifying issues raised under AG ¶ 25 and AG ¶ 15. Consequently, the clearance was denied.

The applicant appealed this decision, but the appeal was also denied. The Board's review was limited because the applicant failed to assert specific errors in the Administrative Judge's original decision. Ultimately, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25raisedDrug Involvement
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 18, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 6, 2017decision on the written record
Decision dateDec 29, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Failure to Present Mitigating Evidence in Personal Conduct Cases Under Guideline E
Limitations on Appeal Review When Specific Errors Are Not Asserted by the Applicant

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 security concerns under Guideline H and Guideline E. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not assert any specific harmful error in his appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJennifer I. Goldstein — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant disagreed with the Judge's decision but did not assert any specific error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error in his appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James F. Duffy

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 E DIGEST: In his appeal brief, Applicant stated he disagreed with the Judge’s decision, but did not assert the Judge committed any specific error. His appeal brief contains new evidence in the form of narrative explanation that Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases de novo. Our 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: 16-00812.a1 DATE: 12/29/2017 DATE: December 29, 2017 In Re: ---------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00812

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 August 18, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On October 6, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In 2015, Applicant was arrested for possession of marijuana after having been granted a security clearance. He self-reported the arrest to his security officer. In 2016, a court placed him under its supervision for a period, required him to remain drug-free, and imposed a $150 fine. The court later issued an expungement order. In this case, the Administrative Judge concluded Applicant failed to present evidence to support the mitigating conditions. In his appeal brief, Applicant stated he disagreed with the Judge’s decision, but did not assert the Judge committed any specific error. His appeal brief contains new evidence in the form of narrative explanation that Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases de novo. Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board