CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-02808.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-02808.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-02808.a1

Mar 6, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance 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 initial decision.

The denial was specifically linked to disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15. The Board's decision to uphold the denial was further influenced by its inability to consider new evidence submitted by the applicant during the appeal process.

Ultimately, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 29, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 31, 2007
Decision dateMar 6, 2008

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The Board noted that it cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

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 as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and submitted new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
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 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

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 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