A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-05950.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 9, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, leading to the affirmation of the adverse decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal brief contained no assertion of error on the part of the Judge.
- The Board's review is limited to allegations of harmful error, which were not made in this case.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2009-01-28
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2009-07-29
- Decision date
- 2009-10-09
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations of the Board's Review Authority
- Importance of Substantive Appeal Arguments in Security Clearance Cases
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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied their request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant's appeal brief did not assert any harmful error, leading the Board to affirm the original decision.
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 DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-05950.a1 DATE: 10/09/2009 DATE: October 9, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-05950
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 January 28, 2009, 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 July 29, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no substantive matters and makes 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. The Board does not review cases de novo. Additionally, Applicant’s appeal submission makes reference to matters that were not part of the record below. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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: Jeffery D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board