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

ISCR Case No. 02-09793

Appeal Board

Decided Mar 3, 2004 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved a pro se applicant contesting an unfavorable security clearance decision based on financial considerations. The applicant argued she was denied the opportunity to present evidence and that her delinquent debts were mitigated. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

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

Appeal Board Decision

<!-- 03/03/2004

-->

DATE: March 3, 2004

<HR>

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

<HR>

ISCR Case No. 02-09793

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

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

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) dated August 4, 2003 which stated the reasons why

DOHA proposed to deny or revoke access to classified information for Applicant. The SOR was based on Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro issued an unfavorable security clearance decision dated November 19, 2003.

Applicant appealed the Administrative Judge's unfavorable decision. The Board has jurisdiction under Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense

Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended.

The following issues have been raised on appeal: (1) whether Applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence for the Administrative Judge

to consider in her case; and (2) whether the Administrative Judge erred by not concluding Applicant's delinquent debts were mitigated. For the reasons that

follow, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's 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. Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32. See also ISCR Case No. 00-0050 (July 23, 2001) at pp. 2-3

(discussing reasons why party must raise claims of error with specificity).

When the rulings or conclusions of an Administrative Judge are challenged, the Board must consider whether they are: (1) arbitrary or capricious; or (2)

contrary to law. Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.3. In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious,

the Board will review the Judge's decision to determine whether: it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its

conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of

judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs

Appearances

E: March 3, 2004

<HR>

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

<HR>

ISCR Case No. 02-09793

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

<P STYLE="text-align: C

Appeal Issues

eline F (Financial Considerations).

Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro issued an unfavorable security clearance decision dated November 19, 2003.

Applicant appealed the Administrative Judge's unfavorable decision. The Board has jurisdiction under Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense

Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended.

The following issues have been raised on appeal: (1) whether Applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence for the Administrative Judge

to consider in her case; and (2) whether the Administrative Judge erred by not concluding Applicant's delinquent debts were mitigated. For the reasons that

follow, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's 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. Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32. See also ISCR Case No. 00-0050 (July 23, 2001) at pp. 2-3

(discussing reasons why party must raise claims of error with specificity).

When the rulings or conclusions of an Administrative Judge are challenged, the Board must consider whether they are: (1) arbitrary or capricious; or (2)

contrary to law. Directive, Additional Procedur

Conclusion

the Board will review the Judge's decision to determine whether: it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its

conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice