KEYWORD: Guideline G
DIGEST: A review of the decision indicates the Judge considered Applicant’s mitigating
evidence, analyzed it appropriately and explained why it was insufficient to overcome the
government’s security concerns.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-05338.a1
DATE: 03/21/2008
DATE: March 21, 2008
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-05338
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 July 11, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
Applicant’s brief could be construed as challenging the Judge’s finding that the Director of Applicant’s
1
alcohol evaluation program was not a duly qualified medical professional or a licensed clinical social worker. 
However, based on the record, that finding is sustainable.  Although the Director’s curriculum vitae recited that he
had multiple degrees and had attended a number of training courses, there was nothing in it that indicated that he was
a physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist or licensed clinical social worker.  See App. Ex. F.  Moreover, the
statement provided by the Director about Applicant’s participation in the program only indicated that Applicant had
benefitted from it and “increased his understanding of the need to avoid alcohol . . .”  It expressed no opinion as to
Applicant’s current circumstances or future prospects insofar as the use of alcohol was concerned. 
2
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On November 13, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Christopher
Graham denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the
Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Rather, it contains a one-sentence summary of the favorable evidence presented at the hearing.   A1
review of the record indicates that the Judge considered Applicant’s mitigating evidence, analyzed
the case under the relevant conditions and factors, and reasonably explained why that evidence was
insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns. 
 The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has
alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  The Board does not review cases de novo.  Applicant
has not made an allegation of harmful error.  Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant
a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chair, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields    
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody   
3
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board