CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-08702.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-08702.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-08702.a1

Jun 4, 2009· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing themselves, was denied a clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. Specifically, Disqualifying Condition F1 was cited.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to allege any harmful error by the judge during the initial review process. The Board's role is not to review cases de novo, meaning it does not conduct a new hearing or re-evaluate the evidence from scratch. Instead, it assesses whether the judge made a legal error that prejudiced the applicant.

Because the applicant did not identify any such error, the Board affirmed the original decision, resulting in the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 2, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 24, 2009
Decision dateJun 4, 2009

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· 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 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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no allegation of 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. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and without such allegations, the decision stands.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
Jean E. Smallin

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 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

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 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