DATE: July 19, 2006

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

PPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

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

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 10, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis for that decision--security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On February 17, 2006, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Jacqueline T. Williams denied Applicant's request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. ⁽¹⁾

Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Administrative Judge. It only contains new evidence in the form of documents showing that Applicant has paid off, or is making regular payments on, his outstanding debts. Much of the documentation predates the adverse determination in his case, but the Applicant states that he did not provide it in response to the government's file of relevant material because he thought credible proof had been provided to the Defense Security Service during his background investigation. ⁽²⁾ The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

The Appeal Board's authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Administrative Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. ⁽³⁾

Therefore, the decision of the Administrative Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.

Signed: Jean E. Smallin

Jean E. Smallin

Administrative Judge

Member, Appeal Board

Signed: William S. Fields

William S. Fields

Administrative Judge

Member, Appeal Board

Signed: Mark W. Harvey

Mark W. Harvey

Administrative Judge

Member, Appeal Board

1. The Administrative Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline J. That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal.

2. A review of the record indicates Applicant was provided with the procedural rights set forth in Executive Order 10865 and the Directive. 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 timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights, 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, 2003).

3. Applicant also argues that an unfavorable decision will adversely impact his employment situation. The possibility that an unfavorable security clearance decision could have adverse consequences for an applicant's job situation is not relevant or material to an evaluation of the security significance of that applicant's conduct. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-11570 at 8 (App. Bd. May 19, 2004).