KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline J
DIGEST: The Directive does not authorize the Appeal Board to hold oral arguments.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-05240.a1
DATE: 08/04/2016
DATE: August 4, 2016
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-05240
APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION
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 May
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) and Guideline J
(Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On May 25, 2016, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Edward W. Loughran 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.
Specifically, he states that he is “not saying the evidence of [his] past was false or that the process
was flawed, but that there is more then what was presented.”  Appeal Brief at 1.  In support of his
argument, he offers new evidence in the form a narrative statement about his current work and
family situation, as well as documents such as character reference letters and an award nomination,
that postdate the Judge’s decision in this case.  He also requests that he be “granted an appeal to
present his case in person.” Id.
Applicant had the opportunity to elect a hearing.  Instead, he requested that his case be
decided on the written record and filed a documentary response to the government’s File of Relevant
Material (FORM).  Nothing in the record below indicates that Applicant was effectively precluded
from presenting evidence on his own behalf, and his failure to take better advantage of his rights
under the Directive does not constitute a denial of those rights.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-20579
at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 14, 2004).  The Appeal Board’s authority is derived from the Directive, which
does not authorize it to hold oral arguments.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-01321 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb.
17, 2010).
The Board does not review a case de novo and it cannot consider new evidence on appeal. 
See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Its 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 on the part of the Judge.  Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan      
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                 
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed; William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board