DATE: September 18, 2006
------------------
SSN: --------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 27, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the 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 March 31, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge James A. Young denied Applicant's request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Administrative Judge. It only contains a request that Applicant's clearance be reinstated in order to give her an opportunity to pay off her debts. (1)
The 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. The Board has no authority to grant Applicant a conditional or probationary security clearance to allow her the opportunity to have a security clearance while she works on her financial problems. See ISCR Case No. 03-07418 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 13, 2004). Therefore, the decision of the Administrative Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, 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
1. Applicant also argues that an unfavorable decision will adversely impact her 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).