CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-09661.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-09661.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-09661.a1

Nov 24, 2009· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The appeal board affirmed this denial.

The board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's initial decision. Consequently, the appeal board concluded that the judge's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, upholding the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence...is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.”
— ISCR Case No. 06-22755 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 17, 2007)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 12, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 24, 2009
Decision dateNov 24, 2009

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Asserting Harmful Error for Appeal
Limitations of Appeal Board's Review Authority

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 who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not assert any harmful error, which is necessary for the Board to review the case.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 DIGEST: Applicant has not asserted harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-09661.a1 DATE: 11/24/2009 DATE: November 24, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-09661

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 February 12, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) Applicant’s brief reads like an alternative Judge’s decision. To the extent that Applicant is asserting that the Judge should have written a decision similar to her brief, she has not demonstrated error. It is well settled that a party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or a party’s ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-22755 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 17, 2007). of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On August 24, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 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. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board