KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B; Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Board has sole discretion on whether to exercise its inherent authority to
reconsider one of its decisions.  Applicant has not drawn attention to anything in the Board’s
decision or the record to support his contention (he believes he is the victim of discrimination. 
Applicant has failed to articulate a persuasive reason to change the Board’s resolution of the case. 
Applicant;’s request denied.
CASENO: 06-18918.a2
DATE: 05/23/2008
DATE: May 23, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-18918
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
ON APPLICANT’S REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
2
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Board issued an Appeal Board Decision in this case on March 28, 2008.  On April 21,
2008, Applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of this decision.  On May 5, 2008, the Chief
Department Counsel advised that he would not file a Reply Brief.  
The Board has inherent authority to entertain requests to reconsider its decisions.  However,
there is no right to reconsideration; the Board has the sole discretion to decide whether to exercise
its inherent authority to reconsider one of its decisions.  See ISCR Case No. 98-0621 at 1-2 (App.
Bd. Nov. 23, 1999).  
In his request for reconsideration, Applicant asserts that the Board’s adverse decision
amounts to his being “judged by [his] birthplace.”  The Board also construes Applicant’s request as
contending that the Board’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  
The Board has considered Applicant’s brief in light of our prior decision.  Applicant has not
drawn attention to anything in the decision or the record to support his contentions.  He merely states
that he “believe[s] that [he  is] a victim of discrimination . . .”  As the Board noted in its decision,
an applicant with family members living in a country hostile to the U.S. bears a “heavy burden” in
demonstrating that those family members do not pose a security risk.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-
00029 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2007).  That burden is even heavier where the applicant has close ties
to those family members, and there is evidence that the family has previously been targeted by the
regime for political reasons.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-02511 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 20, 2007).
Applicant has failed to articulate a persuasive reason to change the Board’s resolution of his
case.  See ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 20, 2005).  Accordingly, Applicant’s request
is denied. 
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                 
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board