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

ISCR Case No. 01-01331.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Feb 27, 2002 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved a security clearance decision where the Administrative Judge denied the applicant's request based on foreign preference. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious, but the Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

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

/P>

DATE: February 27, 2002

<HR>

In Re:

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

SSN: -----------

Applicant for

Procedural History

AN>

Pro Se

Administrative Judge John G. Metz, Jr. issued a decision, dated October 16, 2001, in which he concluded it is not clearly consist

Procedural History

nal 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 of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2,

1992, as amended.

Applicant's appeal presents the issue of whether the Administrative Judge's adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary

to law.

<CENTER>Procedural History</ CENTER>

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) dated May 3, 2001. The SOR was based on

Guideline C (Foreign Preference). A hearing was held on August 14, 2001. The Administrative Judge i

Appeal Issues

sion, dated October

16, 2001, in which he 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 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 weig

Conclusion

WP="BR2">

Second, the favorable decision in ISCR Case No. 99-0295 was reversed by the Board on October 20, 2000, and the favorable decision in ISCR