CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-12181.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-12181.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-12181.a1

Jul 8, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance primarily due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The initial decision found disqualifying conditions under Guideline F, specifically AG ¶ 20, which were not sufficiently mitigated by conditions under AG ¶ 21.

While favorable findings were made regarding Guideline E and were not contested, the financial concerns remained paramount. The applicant appealed the denial but did not assert any harmful error in the judge's original decision.

Consequently, the appeal board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, upholding the determination that the applicant's financial considerations presented an unacceptable security risk.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21appliedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 28, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 15, 2008
Decision dateJul 8, 2008

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Lack of Harmful Error Assertion in Appeal Process
Favorable Findings Under Guideline E Not Contested on Appeal

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 the DOHA. The Administrative Judge found in favor of the applicant on some issues but ultimately denied the clearance based on security concerns. The applicant appealed without alleging any harmful error. The Board affirmed the denial as there was no basis for overturning the decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
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. The Board does not review cases de novo and requires an assertion of harmful error to consider an appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
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 F; Guideline E DIGEST: The Board does not review a case de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-12181.a1 DATE: 07/08/2008 DATE: July 8, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-12181

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 October 28, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as The Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to Guideline E and SOR paragraph 1.g. Those favorable findings are not at issue on appeal. Applicant asks only that his “request for a security clearance be reviewed again.” amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On April 15, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1 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; Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, 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