CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-02496.a1 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date8/11/2010
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 09-02496.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jeffrey D. Billett, Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 09-02496.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-02496.a1

Aug 11, 2010· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial was based on significant and unresolved financial issues, as well as the applicant's failure to provide sufficient mitigating evidence for the concerns raised.

Specifically, the adjudicator identified disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20, AG ¶ 15, and AG ¶ 31. These conditions were not adequately addressed by the applicant during the initial review process.

The denial was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the appeal, and no new evidence was considered that would alter the original decision. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 31raisedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 30, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 17, 2010decided on the written record
Decision dateAug 11, 2010appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the applicant seeking to overturn the denial of his security clearance based on financial considerations, personal conduct, and criminal conduct. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMary E. Henry — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision of the Judge because the applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board's review is limited to the errors claimed by the appellant.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
James E. Moody

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: 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

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 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