Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

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

ISCR Case No. 00-0621

Appeal Board

Decided Jan 30, 2002 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved a review of an adverse security clearance decision issued by Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey Anderson. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider the evidence as a whole and made erroneous findings of fact. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the conclusions drawn from the applicant's criminal conduct and financial issues.

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

ts and his history of financial difficulties provide a rational basis for Judge's adverse conclusions. Adverse decision affirmed.</P>

--> <!-- /DIGEST --> <!-- CASE --> <!-- 00-0621.a1</P>

Procedural History

P>

<P STYLE="text-align: CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG>FOR GOVERNMENT</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<P STYLE="text-align: CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Esq., Chief Department Counsel</SPAN></P>

<P STYLE="text-align: CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG>FOR APPLICANT</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<P STYLE

Procedural History

"text-align: CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><EM>Pro Se</EM></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><EM></EM></SPAN></P>

<P>Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey Anderson issued a decision, dated August 13, 2001, in which she 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.</P>

<P>This Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2,

1992, as amended.</P>

<P>Applicant's appeal presents the following issues: (1) whether the Administrative Judge failed to consider the record evidence as a whole; (2)

whether the Administrative Judge made erroneous findings of fact; and (3) whether the Administrative Judge's adverse security clearance decision

is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.</P>

<P><CENTER><STRONG>Procedural History</STRONG></ CENTER>

</P>

<P>The Defense Office of Hearings an

Appeal Issues

Appeals issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) dated April 24, 2001. The SOR was based on

Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). A hearing was held on July 6, 2001.

The Administrative Judge issued a written decision, dated August 13, 2001, in which she concluded it is not clearly consistent with the national

interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant

Conclusion

: underline">Signed: Michael Y. Ra'anan </SPAN></P>

<P>Michael Y. Ra'anan</P>

<P>Administrative Judge</P>

<P>Member, Appeal Board</P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: underline">Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett </SPAN></P>

<P>Jeffrey D. Billett</P>

<P>Administrative Judge</P>

<P>Member, Appeal Board</P>

<P><A NAME="N_1_">1.