CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-02766.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-02766.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-02766.a1

Jan 12, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The initial denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed this decision, but the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board noted that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's original decision. Furthermore, the Appeal Board does not conduct a de novo review of cases, meaning it does not re-evaluate the evidence from scratch.

Consequently, the Board upheld the lower decision, and the applicant's security clearance was denied. New evidence presented during the appeal could not be considered.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board does not review a case de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 4, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 21, 2011
Decision dateJan 12, 2012

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Pro Se Representation 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The Appeal Board reviewed the denial of a security clearance for the Applicant based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge, leading the Board to affirm the denial.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
Jean E. Smallin

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: The Appeal Board does not review a case de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-02766.a1 DATE: 01/12/2012 DATE: January 12, 2012 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-02766

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 4, 2011, 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 October 21, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher 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 makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. The brief contains a recitation as to why Applicant’s case should be adjudicated favorably. Applicant states in some detail why he believes the Government’s security concerns regarding his financial troubles have been mitigated. Some of Applicant’s representations contain facts not considered below. By explicit mandate, the Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review a case de novo.1 Rather, 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. 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 To the extent Applicant’s brief can be construed as arguing that the record would support a favorable decision, such an argument is not sufficient to demonstrate error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-09072 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 8, 2011).