A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 07-06200.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 11, 2008 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves pro se, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to the absence of any allegations of harmful error in the appeal process. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge, leading to the upholding of the initial denial.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge in their appeal.
- The appeal board's authority is limited to reviewing cases where harmful error is alleged.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG F Financial Considerationsraised
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
- 2007-07-10
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-11-28
- Decision date
- 2008-04-11
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegations
- Limitations of Appeal Board Authority
- Pro Se Representation in Security Clearance Cases
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 was filed by the Applicant seeking to overturn the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant's appeal did not allege any harmful error. The appeal was therefore denied.
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 F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief does not allege harmful error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-06200.a1 DATE: 04/11/2008 DATE: April 11, 2008 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-06200
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 10, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Applicant’s brief only states: “I [Applicant] am appealing the Administrative Judge’s decision.” Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On November 28, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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. 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board