A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-11901.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 20, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under 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.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's financial issues raised significant concerns under Guideline F.
- The applicant's personal conduct was deemed inappropriate under Guideline E.
- Criminal conduct allegations were substantiated under Guideline J.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 16 Criminal Conductraised
- AG ¶ 20 Personal Conductraised
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
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
- 2008-03-06
- Answer filed
- Applicant represented himself.
- Hearing held
- 2008-12-10
- Decision date
- 2009-02-20
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
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.
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 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
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