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

ISCR Case No. 00-0741

Appeal Board

Decided Oct 9, 2001 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved a review of an Administrative Judge's decision denying the applicant a security clearance based on findings of falsification of a security questionnaire and a history of marijuana use. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in these findings and that there was no rational basis for the adverse decision. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

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

Appeal Board Decision

has negative security implications. Judge explained why she concluded Applicant's history of marijuana use (1991-January 2000) and his falsification of

Appearances

ecurity questionnaire in November 1998 warranted adverse formal findings under Guidelines H, E, and J. Adverse decision affirmed.

-->   <!-- 00-0741.a1

-->

Procedural History

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski issued a decision, dated June 28, 2001, in which she concluded it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant

or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Applicant app

Appeal Issues

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

Applicant's appeal presents the following issues: (1) whether the Administrative Judge erred by finding Applicant falsified material facts on a security questionnaire

completed in November 1998; and (2) whether there is a rational basis for 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 March 5, 2001 to Applicant. The SOR was based on Guideline H (Drug

Involvement), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).

Applicant submitted an answer to the SOR in which he indicated he wanted a decision made without a hearing. A File of Relevant Material (FORM) was prepared. A

copy of the FORM was given to Applicant. No response to the FORM was received from Applicant.

Appeal Issues

The Administrative Judge issued a written decision, dated June 28, 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 Applicant's appeal from the Administrative Judge's adverse security clearance decision.

<CENTER>Scope of Review</CENTER>

On appeal, the Board does not review a case de novo. Rather, the Board addresses the material issues raised by the parties to determine whether there is factual or legal

error. There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing party must raise claims of error with specificity and identify how the Administrative Judge committed

factual or legal error. See Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0050 (July 23, 2001) at pp. 2-3 (discussing reasons

why party must raise claims of error with specificity).

When an Administrative Judge's factual findings are challenged, the Board must determine whether "[t]he Administrative Judge's findings of fact are supported by such

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence. In making this review, the Appeal Board

shall give deference to the credibility determinations of the Administrative Judge." Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1. The Board must consider

not only whether there is record evidence supporting a Judge's findings, but also whether there is evidence that fairly detracts from the weight of the evidence supporting

those findings. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-0205 (October 19, 2000) at p. 2.

When a challenge to an Administrative Judge's rulings or conclusions raises a question of law, the Board's scope of review is plenary. See DISCR Case No. 87-2107

(September 29, 1992) at pp. 4-5 (citing federal cases).

<CENTER>Appeal Issues</CENTER>

Applicant's appeal brief contains many factual statements and assertions that go far beyond the record evidence that was before the Administrative Judge. In addition,

Applicant submitted a character letter with his appeal brief. Applicant's statements and assertions and the character letter constitute new evidence, which the Board

cannot consider. See Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.29.<A HREF="#N_1_"> (1)</A>

1. <SPAN STYLE="t

Conclusion

xt-decoration: underline">Whether the Administrative Judge erred by finding Applicant falsified material facts on a security questionnaire completed in November 1998. Apart from t