DATE: March 12, 2004
--------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Juan J. Rivera, Esq., Department Counsel
Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Karen L. Manos, Esq.
Gregory S. Seador, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) dated April 30, 2003 which stated the reasons why DOHA proposed to deny or revoke access to classified information for Applicant. The SOR was based on Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro issued an unfavorable security clearance decision dated October 31, 2003.
Applicant appealed the Administrative Judge's unfavorable decision. The Board has jurisdiction under Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended.
The following issues have been raised on appeal: (1) whether the Administrative Judge erred by not recommending Applicant's case be further considered for a waiver under 10 U.S.C. §986(d); and (2) whether the Board should recommend Applicant's case be further considered for a waiver under 10 U.S.C. §986(d). For the reasons that follow, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's adverse security decision, and does not recommend this case for a waiver under 10 U.S.C. §986.
On appeal, the Board does not review a case de novo. Rather, the Board addresses the material issues raised by the parties to determine whether there is factual or legal error. There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing party must raise claims of error with specificity and identify how the Administrative Judge committed factual or legal error. Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32. See also ISCR Case No. 00-0050 (July 23, 2001) at pp. 2-3 (discussing reasons why party must raise claims of error with specificity).
When the rulings or conclusions of an Administrative Judge are challenged, the Board must consider whether they are: (1) arbitrary or capricious; or (2) contrary to law. Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.3. In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious, the Board will review the Judge's decision to determine whether: it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference of opinion. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 97-0435 (July 14, 1998) at p. 3 (citing Supreme Court decision). In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary to law, the Board will consider whether they are contrary to provisions of Executive Order 10865, the Directive, or other applicable federal law. Compliance with state or local law is not required because security clearance adjudications are conducted by the Department of Defense pursuant to federal law. See U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2 (Supremacy Clause). See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0423 (June 8, 2001) at p. 3 (citing Supreme Court decisions).
When an Administrative Judge's factual findings are challenged, the Board must determine whether "[t]he Administrative Judge's findings of fact are supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record. In making this review, the Appeal Board shall give deference to the credibility determinations of the Administrative Judge." Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1. The Board must consider not only whether there is record evidence supporting a Judge's findings, but also whether there is evidence that fairly detracts from the weight of the evidence supporting those findings, and whether the Judge's findings reflect a reasonable interpretation of the record evidence as a whole. Although a Judge's credibility determination is not immune from review, the party challenging a Judge's credibility determination has a heavy burden on appeal.
When an appeal issue raises a question of law, the Board's scope of review is plenary. See DISCR Case No. 87-2107 (September 29, 1992) at pp. 4-5 (citing federal cases).
If an appealing party demonstrates factual or legal error, then the Board must consider the following questions:
Is the error harmful or harmless? See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0250 (July 11, 2001) at p. 6 (discussing harmless error doctrine);
Has the nonappealing party made a persuasive argument for how the Administrative Judge's decision can be affirmed on alternate grounds? See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-0454 (October 17, 2000) at p. 6 (citing federal cases); and
If the Administrative Judge's decision cannot be affirmed, should the case be reversed or remanded? (Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Items E3.1.33.2 and E3.1.33.3).
1. Whether the Administrative Judge erred by not recommending Applicant's case be further considered for a waiver under 10 U.S.C. §986(d). The Administrative Judge made findings of fact about Applicant entering a plea of nolo contendere in 1984 to the offense of Manslaughter by Operation of an Automobile While Intoxicated or Deprived of Full Possession of Normal Faculties. The Judge also made findings of fact about Applicant's subsequent conviction and sentence to be imprisoned for a term of four years followed by a period of three years probation. The Judge concluded Applicant was ineligible for a security clearance under the statutory disqualification imposed by 10 U.S.C. §986 because of Applicant's sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year.
On appeal, Applicant does not challenge the Administrative Judge's conclusion that Applicant's 1984 conviction falls under 10 U.S.C. §986. Rather, Applicant contends the Judge erred as a matter of law by failing to recommend his case for a waiver. In support of that contention, Applicant argues the Judge's decision not to recommend a waiver: (a) ignored the DoD implementing criteria for 10 U.S.C. §986; and (b) ignored the decisions by Administrative Judges in other DOHA cases with nearly identical facts where a recommendation of waiver was made.
Under 10 U.S.C. §986, the Department of Defense may not grant or renew a security clearance for a defense contractor official or employee that falls under any of four statutory categories [10 U.S.C. §986(c)(1) through (c)(4)]. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §986(d), the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned may authorize an exception to the statutory prohibition against granting or renewing a security clearance for cases covered by 10 U.S.C.§986(c)(1) or 10 U.S.C. §986(c)(4).
In a June 7, 2001 memorandum implementing the provisions of 10 U.S.C.§986, the Deputy Secretary of Defense indicated: "The decision as to whether a particular case involves a meritorious case that would justify pursuing a request for waiver shall be the province of the DoD Component concerned (i.e. all Components authorized to grant, deny or revoke access to classified information) beginning with the Director of the Component Central Adjudication Facility (CAF), the Component appellate authority or other appropriate senior Component official." For purposes of the June 7, 2001 memorandum, Director, DOHA is the Director of the Component's Central Adjudication Facility for industrial security clearance cases.
To implement the June 7, 2001 memorandum, the Director, DOHA issued an operating instruction (dated July 10, 2001) which indicates the following:
"Administrative Judges are responsible for initial resolution as to whether or not 10 U.S.C. 986 applies to the facts of the case." (Operating Instruction, paragraph 2.e.)
"In the event of an appeal raising an issue as to the applicability of 10 U.S.C. 986, the Appeal Board is responsible for final resolution of the issue." (Operating Instruction, paragraph 2.f.)
"In the event of a final determination that 10 U.S.C. 986 applies to the facts of a case, the Director is solely responsible for the discretionary decision as to whether to recommend to the Deputy General Counsel (Legal Counsel) that 10 U.S.C. 986 should be waived by the Secretary of Defense." (Operating Instruction, paragraph 2.g.)
"If an Administrative Judge issues a decision denying or revoking a clearance solely as a result of 10 U.S.C. 986, the Administrative Judge shall include without explanation either the statement 'I recommend further consideration of this case for a waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986' or 'I do not recommend further consideration of this case for a waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986.'"
(Operating Instruction, paragraph 3.e.)
"If the Appeal Board issues a decision denying or revoking a clearance solely as a result of 10 U.S.C. 986, the Appeal Board shall include without explanation either the statement 'The Appeal Board recommends consideration of this case for waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986' or "The Appeal Board does not recommend consideration of this case for a waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986.'" (Operating Instruction, paragraph 3.f.)
"In any case in which [the] Administrative Judge, or [the] Appeal Board in the event of an appeal, recommends consideration of a waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986, the Director shall within his sole discretion determine whether or not to forward the case to the Deputy General Counsel (Legal Counsel) for further consideration of a possible waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986 by the Secretary of Defense together with such rationale as may be requested by the Deputy General Counsel (Legal Counsel)." (Operating Instruction, paragraph 3.g.)
The Operating Instruction does not authorize the Board to review an Administrative Judge's recommendation whether or not a waiver should be considered. Accordingly, the Board will not address the specific arguments Applicant makes in support of his challenge of the Judge's decision not to recommend a waiver under 10 U.S.C. §986(d).
2. Whether the Board should recommend Applicant's case be further considered for a waiver under 10 U.S.C. §986(d). On appeal, Applicant asserts that his case should be recommended to the Secretary of Defense for a waiver under 10 U.S.C. §986. The Board construes this assertion as asking the Board to recommend his case be further considered for a waiver under 10 U.S.C. §986.
Under the Operating Instruction, the Board is asked to make its own recommendation concerning waiver, not to review a Hearing Office Administrative Judge's recommendation about waiver. Accordingly, the Board is not bound by the recommendation made by the Judge below and must review the record evidence as a whole in order to fulfill its obligation to make a meaningful decision whether to recommend or not recommend that a waiver should be considered. (1)
However, under the Operating Instruction, the Board is not authorized to give reasons or an explanation for its decision to recommend or not recommend that a waiver be considered, but only state without explanation either: (1) "The Appeal Board recommends consideration of this case for a waiver of 10 U.S.C. §986" or (2) "The Appeal Board does not recommend consideration of this case for a waiver of 10 U.S.C. §986."
The Administrative Judge's conclusion that 10 U.S.C. §986 precluded him from making a favorable security clearance decision in Applicant's case is not an issue on appeal.
Under the Operating Instruction the Board cannot address the specific arguments asserted in Applicant's request that the Board recommend his case be considered for a waiver under 10 U.S.C. §986(d). The Board reaches this conclusion for the following reasons: (1) the Board does not have the authority to review the Administrative Judge's recommendation that Applicant's case be considered for a waiver under 10 U.S.C. §986(d); and (2) the Board is precluded from giving an explanation for its own recommendation concerning waiver.
Recognizing the limits of its authority under the Operating Instruction, the Board has reviewed the record evidence as a whole and states the following: The Appeal Board does not recommend consideration of this case for a waiver of 10 U.S.C. §986.
Signed: Emilio Jaksetic
Emilio Jaksetic
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
1. Applicant relies, in part, on waiver recommendations made by Hearing Office Administrative Judges in other cases. Although decisions by Hearing Office Judges may be cited as persuasive authority, they are not legally binding on the Board. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-22606 (June 30, 2003) at pp. 3-5 (discussing precedential value of decisions by Hearing Office Administrative Judges).