A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 07-02808.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 6, 2008 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision and submitted new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2007-05-29
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-10-31
- Decision date
- 2008-03-06
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
- Limitations on the Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence and Harmful Error Assertions
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 and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm 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 F; Guideline E DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-02808.a1 DATE: 03/06/2008 DATE: March 6, 2008 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-02808
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 29, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On October 31, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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. Instead, Applicant submits copies of items already in the record, as well as new evidence updating his financial situation. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. It’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. The Board 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board