KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline E
DIGEST: In his appeal brief, Applicant stated he disagreed with the Judge’s decision, but did not
assert the Judge committed any specific error.  His appeal brief contains new evidence in the
form of narrative explanation that Appeal Board cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  The
Board does not review cases de novo.  Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which
the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-00812.a1
DATE: 12/29/2017
DATE: December 29, 2017
In Re:
---------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-00812
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
August 18, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On October 6, 2017,
after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Jennifer I. Goldstein denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed
pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
In 2015, Applicant was arrested for possession of marijuana after having been granted a
security clearance.   He self-reported the arrest to his security officer.  In 2016, a court placed him
under its supervision for a period, required him to remain drug-free, and imposed a $150 fine.  The
court later issued an expungement order.  In this case, the Administrative Judge concluded 
Applicant failed to present evidence to support the mitigating conditions.  
In his appeal brief, Applicant stated he disagreed with the Judge’s decision, but did not assert
the Judge committed any specific error.  His appeal brief contains new evidence in the form of 
narrative explanation that Appeal Board cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
The Board does not review cases de novo.  Our authority to review a case is limited to cases
in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  Because Applicant has
not made such an allegation, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is
AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan            
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
2
Member, Appeal Board
3