A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 00-0140
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 19, 2000 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Appeal at a glance
The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on a history of marijuana use. The applicant appealed, arguing that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the judge's conclusions were rationally supported by the evidence.
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
Appearances
rse decision affirmed.</ P>
--> <!-- /DIGEST --> <!-- CASE --> <!-- 00-0140.a1</P>
--> <!-- /CASE --> <!-- DATE --> <!-- 09/19/2000</P>
--> <!-- /DATE -->
<P>DATE: September 19, 2000</P>
<P><HR>
</P>
Procedural History
"text- decoration: underline">APPEARANCES</SPAN></STRONG></ P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG>FOR GOVERNMENT</STRONG></SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Chief Department Counsel</SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG>FOR APPLICANT</STRONG></SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size:
Appeal Issues
1pt"><STRONG><EM>Pro Se</EM></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><EM></EM></SPAN></P>
<P>Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny issued a decision dated June 28, 2000, in which he concluded it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Applicant appealed. For the
reasons that follow the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's decision.</P>
<P>The Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6
(Directive), dated January 2 1992, as amended.</P>
<P>Applicant's appeal presents the following issue: Whether the Administrative Judge's decision below is arbitrary,
capricious or contrary to law.</P>
<P><CENTER><STRONG>Procedural History</STRONG></ CENTER>
</P>
<P>The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant dated April 12, 2000.
The SOR was based on Guideline H (Drug Involvement). Applicant responded on April 19, 2000 and declined a
hearing. Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM). A copy of the FORM was sent to
Applicant, who was given the opportunity to respond to the FORM. On June 28, 2000, Adm
Conclusion
istrative Judge Claude R.
Heiny issued an unfavorable decision. The case is before the Board on Applicant's appeal of that d