A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-06391.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 3, 2012 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant failed to demonstrate any specific harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not contest the Judge's decision effectively.
- The applicant's appeal lacked specific claims of harmful error against the Administrative Judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
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 issued
- 2011-03-10
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2011-11-21
- Decision date
- 2012-02-03
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
The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial and conduct concerns. The applicant did not assert any specific harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision denying the 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 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
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