CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-06391.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-06391.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-06391.a1

Feb 3, 2012· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Administrative Judge's decision to deny the clearance was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19.

The applicant appealed this decision, but the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board noted that the applicant did not effectively contest the Judge's decision and failed to demonstrate any specific harmful error in the Administrative Judge's findings.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied because the applicant's appeal lacked specific claims of harmful error against the Administrative Judge, and he did not successfully challenge the initial determination regarding his financial considerations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 10, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 21, 2011
Decision dateFeb 3, 2012

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Specific Harmful Error Claims
Importance of Demonstrating Harmful Error in Appeals
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority

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, criminal conduct, and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any specific harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision denying the clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRita C. O’Brien — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline JGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error. The Board's authority is limited to reviewing cases where harmful error is claimed.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
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: The Appeal Board’s authority is limited. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-06391.a1 DATE: 02/03/2012 DATE: February 3, 2012 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-06391

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 March 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), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On November 21, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Rita C. O’Brien 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 specific harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains only a general statement that since he has been employed for the last year, he has put plans in place to correct his financial problems. 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board