CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-06703.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-06703.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-06703.a1

May 4, 2012· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· 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 subsequently upheld by the Appeal Board.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to address the disqualifying condition F1. During the appeal, the applicant did not allege any harmful error on the part of the Administrative Judge. Furthermore, the Appeal Board noted that the applicant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not applicable, as such claims are not recognized in civil proceedings.

Consequently, the Appeal Board found no basis to overturn the original decision, and the security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

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.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.32

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 21, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 29, 2012
Decision dateMay 4, 2012

Cite For

Upholding Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Civil Proceedings
Authority of the Appeal Board to Review Only Harmful Errors Alleged by the Applicant

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge but claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. The Board affirmed the decision as there were no harmful errors alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant does not allege any harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the issue raised was ineffective assistance of counsel, which is not applicable in civil proceedings.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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: Applicant does not allege any harmful error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-06703.a1 DATE: 05/04/2012 DATE: May 4, 2012 In Re: -----

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-06703

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 October 21, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On February 29, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he asserts that his attorney was ineffective. He asks that we grant him a new hearing. 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. In this case, Applicant has not alleged that the Judge committed error. His sole issue is that of ineffective assistance of counsel,1 which does not apply in civil proceedings, such as DOHA cases. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 96-0127 (App. Bd. Jul. 29, 1997) and cases cited therein. Regarding the rights afforded Applicant by the Directive, Applicant had a hearing at his request and submitted documentary evidence. 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 Applicant submitted a second brief after the Board had accepted the Chief Department Counsel’s Reply Brief. The second brief also did not allege any error by the Judge. Furthermore, the Directive only authorizes one brief per party. Finally, this is not the correct forum for pursuing claims against one’s attorney.