A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-00899.a2
DeniedDecided Sep 24, 2008 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought reconsideration of a prior denial of security clearance based on concerns under Guidelines B, C, E, and F. The Board found that the applicant failed to provide a persuasive reason to change its previous decision. Consequently, the request for reconsideration was denied.
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 B Foreign Influenceapplied
- Guideline C Foreign Preferenceapplied
- Guideline E Personal Conductapplied
- Guideline F Financial Considerationsapplied
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- Answer filed
- 2008-08-03 Request for reconsideration submitted.
- Hearing held
- Decision date
- 2008-09-24
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.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
Allegations under Guideline B
Reading the 4 per allegation rows needs a free account.
4 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Allegations under Guideline C
Reading the 6 per allegation rows needs a free account.
6 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Allegations under Guideline E
Reading the 7 per allegation rows needs a free account.
7 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Allegations under Guideline F
Reading the 4 per allegation rows needs a free account.
4 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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