CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-10274.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-10274.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-10274.a1

Sep 11, 2009· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unmitigated financial concerns. The initial denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed this decision, but the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board's decision highlighted that the applicant failed to assert any claims of harmful error in the judge's original ruling.

The Appeal Board's authority is specifically limited to reviewing cases where harmful error is alleged. Since no such error was claimed by the applicant, the Board could not overturn the initial denial, and the security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

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.”
— Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 9, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 30, 2009
Decision dateSep 11, 2009

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not claim any 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, which is necessary for the Board to review the case.

Appeal Board panel

Michael D. Hipple
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

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

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 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