A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-03026.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 30, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to failure to assert harmful error in the judge's decision. The appeal board affirmed the adverse decision as the applicant did not provide specific allegations of harmful error, limiting the board's review to the existing record.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision, leading to the affirmation of the adverse decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
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 issued
- 2008-08-05
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2009-01-27 Applicant requested decision based on written record.
- Decision date
- 2009-03-30
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
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.
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 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
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