KEYWORD: Guideline J
DIGEST: Guideline JA Judge is not required to discuss every piece of evidence.  The Board does
not have authority to grant waivers to 10 USC 986.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 03-26908.a1
DATE: 03/16/2007
DATE: March 16, 2007
In Re:
-----------
SSN: --------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 03-26908
APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On September 16, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On July 12, 2006, after the hearing,  Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry
After the Judge’s decision was issued the Defense Department began to implement new rules for adjudicating1
security clearance cases.  Under these new rules, the Director, DOHA or his designee has the authority to grant waivers
in meritorious case.  See “Implementation of Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified
Information (Dec. 29, 2005).”  There is no provision for waiver recommendations by Judges or others.  See DOHA
Operating Instruction 64, as revised, Sept. 12, 2006 (. . . the Administrative Judge shall not opine whether a waiver of
10 U.S.C. 986 is merited, nor recommend whether to consider the case for a waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986").
2
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the
Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
On appeal, Applicant complains that the Judge’s decision fails to discuss significant evidence
favorable to Applicant in evaluating the allegations in SOR paragraphs 1.a through 1.i.  Applicant
also requests that he be granted a waiver of 10 U.S.C. § 986, and presents new evidence in the form
of statements supporting his request for waiver.  
A Judge is not required to discuss each an every piece of record evidence. See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 02-29608 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 17, 2003).  Moreover, the Judge found in favor of Applicant
with respect to SOR paragraphs 1.a through 1.i, so those allegations are not at issue on appeal.  The
Appeal Board does not have authority to grant waivers of 10 U.S.C. § 986.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
04-11041 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Sept. 29, 2006).   Nor does it have the authority to consider new evidence1
on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party
has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful
error.  Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jean E. Smallin     
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields   
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody    
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
3
Member, Appeal Board