CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-11901.a1 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date2/20/2009
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 06-11901.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, Michael D. Hipple, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 06-11901.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-11901.a1

Feb 20, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance due to concerns under three guidelines: E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial was upheld on appeal, as the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the original decision.

Under Guideline F, the applicant's financial issues were a significant concern. The applicant's personal conduct was deemed inappropriate under Guideline E. Additionally, allegations of criminal conduct were substantiated under Guideline J.

Specific disqualifying conditions were raised under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 16, 19, and 20. Ultimately, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 20raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedMar 6, 2008
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldDec 10, 2008
Decision dateFeb 20, 2009

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Importance of Alleging Harmful Error for Successful Appeals
Security Clearance Denial Based on Financial, Personal, and Criminal Conduct Concerns.

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 after being denied by the Administrative Judge due to security concerns under multiple guidelines. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
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 authority is limited to reviewing cases where harmful error is claimed.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Michael D. Hipple
William S. Fields

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 E; Guideline J DIGEST: The Board’s authority is limited. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-11901.a1 DATE: 02/20/2009 DATE: February 20, 2009 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-11901

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 March 6, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On December 10, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr. 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 harmful error on the part of the Judge. 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. It does not review cases de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board