ISCR Case No. 08-03258.a1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY When unredacted this document contains information EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA Exemption 6 applies KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: The Board does not review a case de novo. Nor does it have authority to grant a clearance on a conditional or probationary basis. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-03258.a1 DATE: 03/09/2009 DATE: March 9, 2009 In Re: ---- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-03258

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 September 29, 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). However, the Guideline E allegation was subsequently withdrawn. Applicant requested a hearing. On December 23, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mark W. Harvey 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 explicit assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, Applicant asks the Board to review her case de novo and grant her a clearance under the whole person concept. In support of her request she states that if the Board grants her a clearance she will be able to pay off her outstanding debts. Otherwise, her financial situation will be set back three to five years. A review of the decision indicates that the Judge conducted an evaluation of Applicant’s case under the whole person factors. Decision at 8-9. He examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).

The Board does not review cases de novo. Nor does it have authority to grant a clearance on a conditional or probationary basis. See ISCR Case No. 04-04302 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 30, 2005); ISCR Case No. 02-23805 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2005). Finally, the adverse impact an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his security eligibility. See ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005); ISCR Case No. 03- 19002 at 4 (App. Bd. May 5, 2005). Accordingly, the Judge’s adverse clearance decision is sustainable.

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; Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board