Loading case…

ISCR 08-00899.a2: Guideline B security clearance hearing, denied (2008) · CASE

ISCR Case 08-00899.a2denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-00899.a2

deniedSep 24, 2008· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· hearing

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, sought reconsideration of a previously denied security clearance. The initial denial was based on concerns under four guidelines: Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

The Board reviewed the applicant's request for reconsideration but found that he did not present a persuasive reason to alter its original decision. Specifically, the Board determined that the security concerns related to Guideline E (Personal Conduct) had not been successfully mitigated.

Consequently, the Board denied the applicant's request for reconsideration, upholding the original denial of his security clearance.

Why the applicant was denied

The applicant did not articulate a persuasive reason to change the Board's resolution.
The Board found no successful mitigation of the security concerns under Guideline E.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline BappliedForeign Influence
Guideline CappliedForeign Preference
Guideline EappliedPersonal Conduct
Guideline FappliedFinancial Considerations

Key rule quoted

“there is no right to reconsideration; the Board has the sole discretion to decide whether to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider one of its decisions.”
ISCR Case No. 98-0621 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 1999)

Procedural posture

SOR issued—
Answer filedAug 3, 2008Request for reconsideration submitted.
Hearing held—
Decision dateSep 24, 2008

Cite for

Denial of Reconsideration Requests Based on Lack of Persuasive Reasons
Discretion of the Board in Reconsideration Matters
Application of Multiple Disqualifying Conditions Under Guidelines B, C, E, and F

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The decision denied the applicant's request for security clearance based on foreign influence concerns under Guideline B. The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns raised regarding foreign ties.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline C (Foreign Preference) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The Board denied the Applicant's request for reconsideration regarding Guideline C concerns. The decision indicates that the Applicant did not provide a persuasive reason to change the previous resolution, which suggests that the foreign preference issues were not sufficiently mitigated.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate the personal conduct concerns under Guideline E. The request for reconsideration was denied, indicating that the applicant did not provide sufficient reasons to change the previous decision regarding his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including several unspecified debts. The applicant's request for reconsideration was denied, and the judge did not find sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial issues raised.

The sub-allegation breakdown is part of the Professional plan. See what it includes.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B; Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: The Board has considered Applicant’s brief in light of our prior decision. Applicant has failed to articulate a persuasive reason to change the Board’s resolution of this case. Request for reconsideration is denied. CASENO: 08-00899.a2 DATE: 09/24/2008 DATE: September 24, 2008 In Re: --------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-00899

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

ON APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se On July 29, 2008, the Board issued an Appeal Decision in this case. On August 3, 2008, Applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of that decision. He further submitted an addendum to his request on August 18, 2008. The Chief Department Counsel advised that he would not file a Reply Brief. The Board has inherent authority to entertain requests to reconsider its decisions. However, there is no right to reconsideration; the Board has the sole discretion to decide whether to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider one of its decisions. See ISCR Case No. 98-0621 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 1999). Applicant requests that the Board reconsider its prior decision and grant him a security clearance, arguing that he had successfully mitigated the Guideline E security concerns in his case under the whole person factors. The Board has considered Applicant’s brief in light of our prior decision. Applicant has failed to articulate a persuasive reason to change the Board’s resolution of this case. See ISCR Case No. 06-25684 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 10, 2008). Accordingly, the request is denied. 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