A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-11498.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 13, 2008 · Administrative Judge Michael D. Hipple · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision, leading to the affirmation of the adverse ruling.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal.
- The appeal contained new evidence that could not be considered.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- B Foreign Influenceraised
- C Foreign Preferenceraised
- E Personal Conductraised
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 issued
- 2007-04-27
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-09-26
- Decision date
- 2008-02-13
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
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline B, Guideline C, and Guideline E. The applicant, representing themselves, did not assert any harmful error in their appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision to deny the clearance.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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