CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-11498.a1 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date2/13/2008
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 06-11498.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jeffrey D. Billett, Michael D. Hipple, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline CForeign Preference · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 06-11498.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-11498.a1

Feb 13, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The initial decision to deny the clearance was upheld on appeal.

The denial was affirmed because the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision during the appeal process. Additionally, the appeal included new evidence that could not be considered, as it was not part of the original record.

Consequently, the adverse ruling was affirmed, and the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

BraisedForeign Influence
CraisedForeign Preference
EraisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 27, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 26, 2007
Decision dateFeb 13, 2008

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
Security Concerns Under Multiple Guidelines Leading to Denial

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was from a denial of a security clearance based on security concerns under Guidelines B, C, and E. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision denying the clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline CGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and no such claims were made.

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
Michael D. Hipple
William S. Fields

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C DIGEST: Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-11498.a1 DATE: 02/13/2008 DATE: February 13, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-11498

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On April 27, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 26, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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. Rather, it contains new evidence which the Board cannot consider on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. It does not review cases de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board