A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 09-02496.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 11, 2010 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial was affirmed on appeal as the applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge and new evidence was not considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's financial issues were significant and unresolved.
- The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns raised.
- The appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
- AG ¶ 31 Criminal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2009-11-30
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2010-05-17 decided on the written record
- Decision date
- 2010-08-11 appeal affirmed
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence
- Lack of Harmful Error Assertion in Appeal Process
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 seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations and other concerns. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not assert 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: The Board’s authority to review a case is limited. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-02496.a1 DATE: 08/11/2010 DATE: August 11, 2010 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-02496
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 In his brief, Applicant states, “I have sent my new credit reports and some documentation showing that they were paid.” However, the only document submitted with the brief was a written character reference. Applicant submitted a credit report in response to the File of Relevant Material. The Judge considered the report and cited it several times in her decision. clearance. On November 30, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record. On May 17, 2010, after reviewing the record, Administrative Judge Mary E. Henry 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 makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Applicant does make reference to additional written materials which he asserts support a granting of his security clearance. However, the Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. 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 Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board