KEYWORD: Guideline c; Guideline B; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant raise a claim for the first time on appeal without sufficient specificity for the
Board to conclude that he has a colorable claim.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 04-09353.a1
DATE: 12/17/2007
DATE: December 17, 2007
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 04-09353
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
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 February 10, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference),
Guideline B (Foreign Influence), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), of Department of Defense
The Judge made formal findings in Applicant’s favor on allegations under Guidelines C and E.  Those findings1
are not at issue on appeal.
Hearing Transcript, pp. 55-56.2
According to Section 1-300 of the NISPOM, a PCL is an employee’s personal clearance.3
2
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On July 17,
2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Christopher Graham denied Applicant’s request for
a security clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in making a factual
finding that Applicant was the sole means of support for his parents residing in Pakistan, whether
Applicant is entitled to a favorable security clearance decision as a result of his having been awarded
a Top Secret security clearance from another government agency, and whether the Judge’s decision
is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.  Finding no harmful error,  the Board affirms the Judge’s
adverse security clearance decision. 
The portion of this case germane to Applicant’s appeal involves allegations of foreign
influence, primarily as a result of the status of Applicant’s parents as residents of and citizens of
Pakistan, and Applicant’s ties to them.   In his findings of fact, the Judge determined that Applicant1
was the sole source of support for his parents.  On appeal, Applicant asserts that this finding is not
supported by the record evidence and references a passage in the hearing transcript where he
indicates that his uncle and brother live in the same house as his parents and also support the family.2
After a review of the record, the Board concludes that it was error for the Judge to find that
Applicant was his parents’ only means of support.  However, when evaluating this single factual
error in the context of the totality of the record evidence and the entirety of the Judge’s findings and
conclusions, the Board concludes that this error was harmless.  There is ample support in the record
for the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision.
Applicant asks the Board to take into account the fact that he passed a full scope polygraph
for another government agency “that has full knowledge of all the issues brought into question by
these proceedings” and that he was awarded a Top Secret clearance by them.  Applicant’s assertion
bears on the issue of the application of the reciprocity provisions of Section 2-204 of the National
Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM).  Section 2-204 reads as follows:
Federal agencies that grant access to classified information to their employees or their
contractor employees are responsible for determining whether such employees have
been previously cleared or investigated by the Federal Government.  Any previously
granted PCL  that is based upon a current investigation of a scope that meets or3
exceeds that necessary for the clearance required, shall provide the basis for issuance
of a new clearance, without further investigation or adjudication unless significant
derogatory information that was not previously adjudicated becomes known to the
granting agency.  
The issue of whether a prior security clearance held by Applicant might trigger the reciprocity
provisions of Section 2-204 of the NISPOM was not raised below by Applicant.  In his hearing
This case is  distinguishable from the Board’s disposition in ISCR Case No. 98-0320 (App. Bd. Apr. 8, 1999).4
In that case, a document providing specific details about a previously granted clearance was offered by Applicant at the
hearing and admitted into evidence.  Applicant relied on that evidence in making the specific argument, both at the
hearing and on appeal, that the earlier grant of a clearance should result in a favorable disposition in the DOHA
adjudication.  With that background, the Board remanded the case with instructions to the Judge to allow the parties to
develop the record concerning the applicability of Section 2-203 (the applicable NISPOM provision at the time on the
subject of reciprocity) to Applicant’s case. 
3
testimony, Applicant made general references to previous clearances held by him in the context of
providing  background information to the Judge, but his testimony provides nothing specific in terms
of the identities of the granting agencies, or the dates involved.  Applicant’s security clearance
application, which is part of the record, contains no information about previous clearances.
Similarly, Applicant’s appeal assertions contain no specific information about the date of the
granting of the particular clearance he is referencing, or the identity of the granting agency.  There
is no other evidence in the record to indicate whether or not the several prerequisites for the granting
of reciprocity listed in Section 2-204 of the NISPOM have been satisfied in this case.
There is no presumption of error below and Applicants must present issues on appeal with
sufficient specificity to enable the Board to carry out its appellate review responsibilities under the
Directive.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0429 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 9, 2001).  On appeal, Applicant asks
the Board to take into consideration the fact that he was granted an earlier clearance but he does not
make a claim of reciprocity under Section 2-204 of the NISPOM.  No such issue was raised below,
and the record contains no details or corroborating evidence to provide even a threshold
substantiation for any claim that Applicant is entitled to favorable disposition of this case as a result
of an earlier security clearance adjudication.  Based on the record before us, and Applicant’s
assertions on appeal, the Board will not assume that Applicant intended to raise a claim of error
based on the requirements of Section 2-204.  Accordingly, the Board concludes that Applicant  fails
to raise a colorable claim that DOHA processed his case in a manner inconsistent with applicable
regulations, including the NISPOM.4
Applicant also asks the Board to reconsider the decision below and to reinstate his clearance.
Inasmuch as the Board does not engage in de novo review, it construes Applicant’s request as raising
the issue of whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  The Board has
considered the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole, and concludes that it is reasonably
supported by the evidence.
4
         Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is  AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett        
Jeffrey D. Billett
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
Member, Appeal Board