CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-09329.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-09329.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-09329.a1

Apr 10, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

This case concerns an applicant who sought a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, representing himself. The appeal was ultimately denied.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's poor credit history, which was a central factor in the initial decision. During the appeal process, the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's original ruling.

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, noting that their review authority is limited and they do not conduct de novo reviews of cases. Consequently, with no harmful error asserted by the applicant, the Board found no basis to overturn the initial denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 4, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 25, 2012
Decision dateApr 10, 2012

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowClaude R. Heiny — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and no such claims were made in the appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
Jean E. Smallin

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 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

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 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