A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-00346.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 13, 2009 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial was affirmed on appeal as the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had financial issues that raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The applicant's personal conduct was deemed to pose a risk under Guideline E.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2008-05-13
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested decision on written record.
- Hearing held
- 2009-01-08 Decision made by Administrative Judge.
- Decision date
- 2009-04-13 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
- Affirmation of Denial When No Harmful Error Is Alleged 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
The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal.
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; Guideline E DIGEST: The Board does not review a case de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-00346.a1 DATE: 04/13/2009 DATE: April 13, 2009 In Re: --- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-00346
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 May 13, 2008, 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 amended) (Directive). Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record. On January 8, 2009, after considering the record, 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. 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 D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple 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