CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-07789.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-07789.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-07789.a1

Oct 10, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Board affirmed this denial, noting the applicant did not claim any harmful error in the initial decision and that new evidence could not be introduced during the appeal process.

Specifically, the applicant's financial history presented disqualifying conditions under Guideline F, raising security concerns related to his financial stability and reliability. Additionally, his personal conduct was found to be problematic, leading to disqualifying conditions under Guideline E.

These issues collectively led to the denial of the security clearance. The Board's decision emphasized that the appeal process is limited to reviewing the existing record for errors, rather than introducing new information.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 10, 2011
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldJun 18, 2012
Decision dateOct 10, 2012

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied 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 as the applicant's appeal did not raise any specific harmful errors.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert J. Tuider — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to the errors claimed by the appellant, and no such errors were presented.

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
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; 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

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 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