KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: There is a rebuttable presumption that Federal officials and employees carry out their
duties in good faith.  DOHA proceeding are civil in nature and applicants are not entitled to the
procedural protections afforded criminal defendants.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-24460.a1
DATE: 04/30/2008
DATE: April 30, 2008
In Re:
-------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24460
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
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 June 14, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
Judge: Very well.  Sir, do you understand you have a right to be represented at your own expense? Applicant:1
Yes.  Judge:  Have you decided to represent yourself today?  Applicant: Yes, sir.  Judge: Are you ready to proceed with
the hearing today?  Applicant: Yes, sir.  Judge: Now, before we started the hearing I was visiting with [Applicant] and
he seemed to indicate that he thought perhaps an attorney might be appointed for him and I explained to him that was
not the case and that perhaps he had confused the Government attorney he had been dealing with leading up to the case.
So, with that explanation noted, [Applicant], it’s still your desire to represent yourself, today?  Applicant: Yes sir, That’s
fine.  Transcript at 5-6. 
2
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 January 18, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Michael H.
Leonard denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to
the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether Applicant was denied due process.
Applicant essentially contends he was denied due process.  In that regard, he argues that
Department Counsel led him to believe that an attorney would be present at the hearing to represent
him.  Applicant also argues that even though he elected to proceed on his own, he was somewhat
intimidated by the situation and did not present as much mitigating evidence as he could have.
Therefore, Applicant requests that the case be remanded for a new hearing.  The Board does not find
Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
There is a rebuttable presumption that federal officials and employees carry out their duties
in good faith.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0030 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 20, 2001).  A party seeking to
rebut that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion on appeal.  Applicant has not met that
heavy burden.  Applicant fails to identify anything in the record below that indicates or suggests a
basis for a reasonable person to conclude that Department Counsel acted improperly, unfairly or
unprofessionally.  See, e.g, ISCR Case No. 05-04923 at 3, n. 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 24, 2007); ISCR Case
No. 03-21329 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 25, 2006).
DOHA proceedings are civil in nature and applicants are not entitled to the procedural
protections afforded to criminal defendants.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-12199 at 5-6 (App. Bd.
Oct. 7, 2004).  Therefore, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are of no moment.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 02-17574 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 24, 2006).  A review of the record indicates that
Applicant was provided with the procedural rights set forth in Executive Order 10865 and the
Directive, as well as prehearing guidance (which advised that Applicant could appear by himself,
with an attorney he selected and paid for, or with a personal representative).  At the beginning of the
hearing, the Judge diligently inquired into Applicant’s understanding of his right to retain an
attorney, and his willingness to represent himself at the hearing.   Based upon the representations he1
received from Applicant, the Judge reasonably concluded that Applicant was making a knowing and
intelligent waiver of his right to counsel, and was ready and willing to proceed with the hearing. See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-17574 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 24, 2006); compare ISCR Case No. 04-12732 at
8 (App. Bd. Nov. 2, 2006).  During the hearing Applicant gave a coherent explanation about his
3
situation, offered a documentary exhibit on his own behalf, answered questions appropriately, and
did not otherwise impose any objections to the proceedings.  Although pro se applicants cannot be
expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights
under the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0593 at 4 (App. Bd. May 14, 2001).  If they fail to
take such steps, that failure to act does not constitute a denial of their rights.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 02-19896 at 6 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2001).  Because Applicant did not object to proceeding or
otherwise request a continuance of his case, he was not denied due process under the Directive or
Executive Order.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan     
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin         
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields        
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board