A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-08702.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 4, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves pro se, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge, leading to the affirmation of the initial denial.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge.
- The Board does not review cases de novo.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2008-12-02
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2009-03-24
- Decision date
- 2009-06-04
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Financial Considerations Under Guideline F as a Basis for Denial
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 who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. 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 made no allegation of harmful error. The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-08702.a1 DATE: 06/04/2009 DATE: June 4, 2009 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-08702
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 December 2, 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 a hearing. On March 24, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 substantive matters and makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 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. 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board