A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 09-07789.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 10, 2012 · Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant did not assert any harmful error and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had financial issues that raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The applicant's personal conduct was deemed problematic under Guideline E.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-06-10
- Answer filed
- Applicant represented himself.
- Hearing held
- 2012-06-18
- Decision date
- 2012-10-10
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
- Limitations on the Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence and Harmful Error Assertions.
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 from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
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; Guideline E DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-07789.a1 DATE: 10/10/2012 DATE: October 10, 2012 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-07789
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 June 10, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On June 18, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider 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 makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. He asserted that he is taking action to address his outstanding debts and he has engaged a financial assistance company to help him obtain good credit. Some of these representations are not contained in the record below. The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett 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