Loading case…

ISCR 08-00346.a1: Guideline E security clearance appeal, denied (2009) · CASE

ISCR Case 08-00346.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-00346.a1

Apr 13, 2009· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance 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.

The denial was based on specific disqualifying conditions raised under Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) paragraphs 20 and 15. The applicant's financial issues were identified as raising security concerns under Guideline F.

Additionally, the applicant's personal conduct was deemed to pose a risk under Guideline E. These combined factors led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural posture

SOR issuedMay 13, 2008
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldJan 8, 2009Decision made by Administrative Judge.
Decision dateApr 13, 2009Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision to deny the clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

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, and the Board's review is limited to such allegations. The case was not reviewed de novo.

Appeal Board panel

Michael D. Hipple
Jean E. Smallin
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: 08-00346.a1 DATE: 04/13/2009 DATE: April 13, 2009 In Re: --- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-00346

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 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