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

ISCR Case No. 00-0050

Appeal Board

Decided Jul 23, 2001 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved a security clearance denial by Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey Anderson. The Applicant, representing himself, did not raise any specific claims of error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, stating that the Applicant's pro se status did not exempt him from the requirement to specify claims of error.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Appearances

-->   <!-- 00-0050.a1

-->   <!-- 07/23/2001

-->

DATE: July 23, 2001

<HR>

In Re:

-------------

Procedural History

NTER">Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Esq., Chief Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey Anderson issued a decision, dated April 18, 2001, in which she concluded it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant

or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Applicant appealed. For the reasons set forth below, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's decision.

This Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and Department

Appeal Issues

of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended.

Applicant's appeal presents the following issue: whether the Board should review Applicant's security clearance case de novo and reverse the Administrative Judge's

adverse security clearance decision.

<CENTER>Procedural History</ CENTER>

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) dated May 31, 2000 to Applicant. The SOR was based on Guideline E (Personal

Conduct), Guideline B (Foreign Influence), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).

Applicant submitted an answer to the SOR. In the answer to the SOR, Applicant asked that the hearing in his case be consolidated with that of his wife's case (ISCR

Case No. 00-0051). Applicant's wife submitted an answer to the SOR in ISCR Case No. 00-0051, in which she asked that the hearing in her case be consolidated with

Applicant's case. Department Counsel submitted a motion indicating it joined the request to consolidate the hearings for ISCR Case No. 00-0050 and ISCR Case No.

00-0051. On October 17, 2000, the Administrative Judge granted the request for a consolidated hearing. The consolidated hearing was held on November 29, 2000.

The Administrative Judge issued a decision, dated April 18, 2001, in which she concluded it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a

security clearance for Applicant. The case is before the Board on Appli

Conclusion

d, the Board

does not review cases de novo. Rather, the Board is limited to reviewing a Judge's decision under the terms of the Directive,