A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-09329.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 10, 2012 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The appeal was denied due to the absence of harmful error in the initial decision, which highlighted the applicant's poor credit history. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's ruling, emphasizing the limited scope of their review.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal.
- The Board does not review cases de novo, limiting their authority to affirming the original decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-05-04
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2012-01-25
- Decision date
- 2012-04-10
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Lack of Harmful Error as a Basis for Appeal
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 considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as there were no claims of harmful error.
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 Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-09329.a1 DATE: 04/10/2012 DATE: April 10, 2012 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-09329
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 May 4, 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 January 25, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny 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 makes assertions regarding his credit history, the factors that contributed to it, and the reasons that he should be granted a security clearance. He asks the Board to show him leniency and compassion by reinstating his clearance. 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board