KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant does not allege any harmful error by the Judge.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-06703.a1
DATE: 05/04/2012
DATE: May 4, 2012
In Re:
-----
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-06703
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 October 21, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
1Applicant submitted a second brief after the Board had accepted the Chief Department Counsel’s Reply Brief.
The second brief also did not allege any error by the Judge.  Furthermore, the Directive only authorizes one brief per
party.  Finally, this is not the correct forum for pursuing claims against one’s attorney.  
2
of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On February 29, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Noreen A.
Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive
¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Rather, he asserts that his attorney was ineffective.  He asks that we grant him a new hearing.    
The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing
party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  In this case,
Applicant has not alleged that the Judge committed error.  His sole issue is that of ineffective
assistance of counsel,1 which does not apply in civil proceedings, such as DOHA cases.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 96-0127 (App. Bd. Jul. 29, 1997) and cases cited therein.  Regarding the rights
afforded Applicant by the Directive, Applicant had a hearing at his request and submitted
documentary evidence.  The Board does not review cases de novo.  Therefore, the decision of the
Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan          
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board