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

ISCR Case No. 01-07360.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Apr 10, 2002 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on allegations of personal conduct, specifically falsification of material facts. The applicant argued that the Administrative Judge was biased and made various factual and legal errors. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions and supporting evidence.

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

judgment and reliability. Adverse decision affirmed.

CASENO: 01-07360.a1

DATE: 04/10/2002

DATE: April 10, 2002

<HR>

In Re:

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

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

<BR WP="BR

Procedural History

TYLE="text-align: CENTER">APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

<P STYLE="text-ali

Appeal Board Summary Disposition

n: CENTER">Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Esq., Chief Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski issued a decision, dated December 10, 2001, in which she concluded it is not clearly consistent with

the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. App

Appeal Issues

icant 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 following issues: (1) whether Applicant was denied a prompt adjudication of his case; (2) whether the

Administrative Judge was biased; and (3) whether the Administrative Judge made various factual or legal errors.

<CENTER>Procedural History</ CENTER>

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) dated April 16, 2001. The SOR was based on

Guideline E (Personal Conduct). A hearing was held on September 28, 2001. The Administrative Judge issued a written decision, dated

December 10, 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 Judge's adverse 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>

1. Whether Applicant was denied a prompt adjudication of his case. Applicant refers to the saying "Justice delayed is justice denied" and argues:

(a) the SOR was not issued until 14 months after he was interviewed by a Special Agent of the Defense Security Service (DSS); (b) Department

Counsel did not contact Applicant until 18 months after Applicant was interviewed by the DSS Special Agent; (c) it took Department Counsel 18

months after Applicant was interviewed by the DSS Special Agent to realize he was not in Florida; (d) because of the passage of time, Applicant

was unable to get a copy of the DSS

Conclusion

t that warranted adverse conclusions

under Guideline E. Therefore, the absence of any discussion of those two alcohol-related incidents under Guideline G or the Adjudicative

Guidelines pertaining to Alcohol Consumption in t