A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-06703.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 4, 2012 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · 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 upheld the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge and that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not applicable in civil proceedings.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge.
- The applicant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not applicable in civil proceedings.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
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
- 2011-10-21
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2012-02-29
- Decision date
- 2012-05-04
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
The appeal was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge but claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. The Board affirmed the decision as there were no harmful errors alleged.
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: 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
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.