A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-00812.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 29, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) stemming from a 2015 marijuana possession arrest. The Administrative Judge found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient mitigating evidence, and the appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert specific errors in the Judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant was arrested for marijuana possession after being granted a security clearance.
- The applicant failed to present evidence to support mitigating conditions during the hearing.
- The appeal did not assert specific errors in the Judge's decision, limiting the Board's review.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 25 Drug Involvementraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
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 issued
- 2016-08-18
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-10-06 decision on the written record
- Decision date
- 2017-12-29
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
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.
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 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
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