KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline E; Guyideline B
DIGEST: Considering all the circumstances, the Board concludes Applicant waived his right to a
hearing and received a reasonable opportunity to respond to the FORM, including the option to
present additional evidence for consideration in his case.  Absent a showing of factual or legal
error that affects a party’s right to present evidence in the proceeding below, a party does not
have the right to have a second chance at presenting his or her case before an administrative
judge.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-02730.a1
DATE: 06/24/2016
DATE: June 24, 2016
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-02730
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
February 18, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline E (Personal
Conduct), and Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2,
1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On April 21,
2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative
Judge Gregg A. Cervi denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed
pursuant to 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 request for a hearing.  Applicant notes that, when he responded to the SOR, he
was scheduled to be overseas for an extended period, and it would have been impractical for him
to return for a hearing.  He also pointed out that the Judge commented in the decision that he was
unable to evaluate Applicant’s credibility and demeanor without a hearing.  Applicant now believes, 
if he was provided an opportunity to appear before the Judge, he could establish his credibility and
obtain a favorable decision.
After requesting a decision on the written record, Applicant received a copy of Department
Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and was given an opportunity to respond to the FORM
and submit additional matters for the Judge to consider.  He submitted a response to the FORM that
included a letter of recommendation from his employer.  Considering all the circumstances, the
Board concludes Applicant waived his right to a hearing and received a reasonable opportunity to
respond to the FORM, including the option to present additional evidence for consideration in his
case.  Absent a showing of factual or legal error that affects a party’s right to present evidence in the
proceeding below, a party does not have the right to have a second chance at presenting his or her
case before an administrative judge.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-20403 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 7,
2003); ISCR Case No. 03-15214 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 21, 2005).  Applicant has not demonstrated
error below and is not entitled to a hearing just so he can have another opportunity to present his
case. 
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan        
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody          
2
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy             
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3