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

ISCR Case No. 00-0345

Appeal Board

Decided Dec 12, 2001 · Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved a review of an adverse security clearance decision issued by Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola, which was based on the applicant's financial difficulties. The applicant, representing himself, argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's security eligibility based on his financial history.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

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

Decision text, by section

Appearances

difficulties. Applicant's history of recurring financial difficulties provides rational basis for the Administrative Judge's adverse conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.

--> <!-- /

Procedural History

-->  <!-- 12/12/2001

-->

DATE: December 12, 2001

<HR>

In Re:

-------------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

<HR>

ISCR Case No. 00-0345

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Esq., Chief Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola issued a decision, dated July 25, 2001, in which he concluded it is not clearly consistent with the national

interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Applicant appealed. For the reasons set forth below, the Board affirms the

Administrative Judge's decision.

This Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Dir

Procedural History

ective), dated January 2,

1992, as amended.

Applicant's appeal presents the issue of whether the Administrative Judge's adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary

to law.

<CENTER>Procedural History</ CENTER>

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) dated September 11, 2000. The SOR was

based on Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).

Applicant submitted an answer to the answer and elected to have a decision made in his case without a hearing. A File of Relevant Material

(FORM) was prepared and a copy provided to Applicant. No response to the FORM was received from Applicant. The case was then

assigned to an Administrative Judge for determination.

The Administrative Judge issued a written decision, dated July 25, 2001. In that decision, the Judge entered formal findings in favor of Applicant

with respect to Guideline E and Guideline J, but entered formal findings against Ap

Appeal Issues

plicant with respect to Guideline F and concluded it is not clearly

consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. The case is before the Board on Applicant's appeal

from the Judge's adverse security clearance decision.

<CENTER>Scope of Review</CENTER>

On appeal, the Board does not review a case de novo. Rather, the Board addresses the material issues raised by the parties to determine whether

there is factual or legal error. There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing party must raise claims of error with specificity and

identify how the Administrative Judge committed factual or legal error. See Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32. See, e.g.,

ISCR Case No. 00-0050 (July 23, 2001) at pp. 2-3 (discussing reasons why party must raise claims of error with specificity).

When

Conclusion

conclusions with respect to Guideline E and Guideline J are not at issue on appeal.

Applicant makes several arguments: (1) he is an honest debtor who used the bankruptcy