CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-09704.a2 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 08-09704.a2

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date4/21/2010
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 08-09704.a1) →See the hearing decision (Case 08-09704.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jean E. Smallin, James E. Moody, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but faced issues under Guideline F, which pertains to financial considerations. The core allegations in the Statement of Reasons included concerns about the applicant's financial history, specifically regarding unpaid debts and a lack of financial responsibility.
In her appeal, the applicant did not identify any errors in the previous decision made by the Appeal Board. Instead, she expressed disagreement with the ruling and submitted new evidence in support of her request for reconsideration. However, the Board noted that it could not consider this new evidence as per the established directive. The applicant's admissions and denials regarding her financial situation were not detailed in the decision, but her request for clarification and reconsideration was ultimately based on her disagreement with the Board's findings.
The administrative judge ruled to affirm the adverse decision, stating that the applicant had not demonstrated any error in the prior ruling. The Board emphasized its discretion in handling requests for reconsideration and concluded that the applicant's request was denied due to her failure to identify any substantive errors in the original decision.
Guidelines EvaluatedNo guidelines explicitly mapped for this case.
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-09704.a2

deniedApr 21, 2010· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· hearing

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, sought reconsideration of a prior adverse decision concerning her security clearance. The Appeal Board, citing the relevant guidelines, reviewed the request.

The Board determined that the applicant failed to identify any errors in the initial Appeal Board decision. Furthermore, the Board was unable to consider new evidence that the applicant submitted as part of her reconsideration request.

Based on these findings, the Appeal Board denied the applicant's request for reconsideration, upholding the original adverse decision regarding her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not identify any error in the first Appeal Board decision.
The Board cannot consider new evidence submitted by the applicant.

Key Rule Quoted

“There is no right to reconsideration; the Board has the sole discretion to decide whether to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider one of its decisions.”
— ISCR Case No. 98-0621 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 1999)

Procedural Posture

Decision dateApr 21, 2010
Request for reconsideration submittedApr 9, 2010
Response from Department CounselApr 14, 2010
Initial Appeal Board DecisionMar 31, 2010

Cite For

Discretion of the Appeal Board Regarding Reconsideration Requests
Limitations on Evidence Considered in Reconsideration
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Errors Are Identified

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.