KEYWORD: Guideline G
DIGEST: The Appeal Board has no authority over delays in the processing of a case.  The
Appeal Board has no supervisory authority over adjudicators or DOHA personnel involved in
processing security clearances.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-04097.a1
DATE: 04/30/2019
DATE: April 30, 2019
In Re:
----------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-04097
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 13, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the 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 decision
on the written record.  On February 27, 2019, after considering the record, Administrative Judge
Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to
Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
 Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Rather, it contains complaints about the processing of his case.  He contends that his case took too
long to process, that the “case worker” changed at some point and did not have all of the facts from
his personal interview, and that he could not get a response from DOHA when he called to check
on the status of his case.  The Board has no jurisdiction to rule on the complaints he has raised.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No.11-12730 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2013) (the Appeal Board has no authority over
delays in the processing of a case) and ISCR Case No. 99-0481 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2000)(the
Appeal Board has no supervisory authority over adjudicators or DOHA personnel involved in
processing security clearances).  Applicant also indicates that denial of his security clearance may
place his job in jeopardy.  The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an
unfavorable decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02619 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 7, 2016).  Applicant
requests a complete review of his file and findings.  We do not review cases de novo.  
The Appeal Board’s 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 of error, 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: James F. Duffy              
James F. Duffy 
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale              
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
2