FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Board does not review a case de novo. Nor does it have authority to grant a
clearance on a conditional or probationary basis.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-03258.a1
DATE: 03/09/2009
DATE: March 9, 2009
In Re:
----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-03258
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 September 29, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
2
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  However, the Guideline E allegation was subsequently withdrawn.  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On December 23, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mark W.
Harvey 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 contains no explicit assertion of harmful error on the part of the
Judge.  Rather, Applicant asks the Board to review her case de novo and grant her a clearance under
the whole person concept.  In support of her request she states that if the Board grants her a clearance
she will be able to pay off her outstanding debts.  Otherwise, her financial situation will be set back
three to five years.
A review of the decision indicates that the Judge conducted an evaluation of Applicant’s case
under the whole person factors. Decision at 8-9.  He examined the relevant data and articulated a
satisfactory explanation for his decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156,
168 (1962)).
 
The Board does not review cases de novo. Nor does it have authority to grant a clearance on
a conditional or probationary basis.  See ISCR Case No. 04-04302 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 30, 2005);
ISCR Case No. 02-23805 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2005).  Finally, the adverse impact an unfavorable
decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his
security eligibility.  See ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005); ISCR Case No. 03-
19002 at 4 (App. Bd. May 5, 2005).  Accordingly, the Judge’s adverse clearance decision is
sustainable.
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
3
Signed: William S. Fields       
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board