CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-266686.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-266686.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-266686.a1

Mar 21, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance based on concerns under three guidelines: Financial Considerations (Guideline F), Personal Conduct (Guideline E), and Criminal Conduct (Guideline J). The Board affirmed this denial.

Specific disqualifying conditions were raised under AG ¶ 20, AG ¶ 15, and AG ¶ 31. The Board's decision to uphold the denial was based on two primary factors. First, the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the judge's initial decision.

Second, the Board explicitly stated that it does not possess the authority to grant security clearances on a conditional or probationary basis. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 31raisedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not have authority to grant clearance on a conditional or probationary basis.”
— ISCR Case No. 04-04302 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 30, 2005); ISCR Case No. 03-17410 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 12, 2005)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 27, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 13, 2007Applicant requested decision on written record.
Decision dateMar 21, 2008

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Lack of Authority for Conditional Clearances by the Board
Absence of Harmful Error Allegations in Appeals Process

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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied by an Administrative Judge due to security concerns under multiple guidelines. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJoseph Testan — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board lacks authority to grant a clearance on a conditional basis.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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 F; Guideline J DIGEST: The Board does not have authority to grant a clearance on a conditional or probationary basis. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-266686.a1 DATE: 03/21/2008 DATE: March 21, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-26686

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 July 27, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On December 13, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Joseph Testan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In her brief, Applicant requests that the Appeal Board grant her an interim secret clearance for 24 months so that she can resolve her financial problems. Her appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. The Board does not have authority to grant clearance on a conditional or probationary basis. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-04302 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 30, 2005); ISCR Case No. 03-17410 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 12, 2005). The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board