A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-10274.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 11, 2009 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to a lack of demonstrated harmful error in the judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, emphasizing that the applicant did not assert any claims of error, which is necessary for a successful appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge.
- The Appeal Board's authority is limited to cases where harmful error is alleged.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board’s authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2009-02-09
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2009-06-30
- Decision date
- 2009-09-11
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Importance of Demonstrating Claims of Error 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 was filed by the applicant seeking to overturn the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge as the applicant did not claim any harmful error in the appeal.
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: 08-10274.a1 DATE: 09/11/2009 DATE: September 11, 2009 In Re: ---- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-10274
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 February 9, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Applicant states, “I do not think that the judge made any errors . . .” Applicant then lists reasons why she believes she should be granted a clearance, in effect asking the Board to consider her case de novo. Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On June 30, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. 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 assertion of error on the part of the Judge. The Appeal Board’s authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. See also ISCR Case No. 08-08702 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Jun. 4, 2009). It does not review a case de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, 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