CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-03026.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-03026.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-03026.a1

Mar 30, 2009· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to issues related to Disqualifying Condition F.1. The applicant appealed the initial adverse decision.

However, the appeal board affirmed the denial because the applicant failed to assert specific allegations of harmful error in the judge's original decision. This omission limited the board's review to the existing record, preventing them from considering new arguments or evidence.

Consequently, without specific claims of harmful error to address, the board upheld the initial denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 5, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 27, 2009Applicant requested decision based on written record.
Decision dateMar 30, 2009

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations of Appeal Board Review Authority
Importance of Specific Allegations in Appeals

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 under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as there were no claims of harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJoseph Testan — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not claim any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error, which is necessary for the Board to review the case.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
James E. Moody

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 DIGEST: Applicant has not made a claim of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-03026.a1 DATE: 03/30/2009 DATE: March 30, 2009 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-03026

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 August 5, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested that the case be decided based on the written record. On January 27, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Joseph Testan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no specific assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. It contains a brief recitation of facts, some of which are a repetition of facts in the record below, and some of which are new representations. Also, the brief is accompanied by several documents that were not part of the record below. 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. The Board does not review cases de novo. Also, the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive, ¶ E3.1.29. 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board