CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-03258.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-03258.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-03258.a1

Mar 9, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance. Initially, the case involved concerns under both Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct); however, the Guideline E allegation was subsequently withdrawn.

The Administrative Judge ultimately denied the security clearance request based on unresolved financial issues, specifically citing Disqualifying Condition F.1. The applicant's appeal of this decision was affirmed.

The appeal board emphasized its lack of authority to grant conditional clearances, upholding the denial due to the applicant's outstanding financial concerns under Guideline F.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo. Nor does it have authority to grant a clearance on a conditional or probationary basis.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 29, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 23, 2008
Decision dateMar 9, 2009

Cite For

Security Concerns Under Guideline F Due to Financial Issues
Withdrawal of Allegations Under Guideline E
Limitations of the Board's Review Authority Regarding Conditional Clearances

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations. The applicant did not assert any specific harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and requested a de novo review. The Board affirmed the denial, finding the Judge's decision sustainable based on the evidence presented.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark W. Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not assert any specific harmful error in the judge's decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as it was supported by substantial evidence and did not find any harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields

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

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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 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.

ORDER

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