CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02330 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02330denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02330

Mar 18, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial concerns. The Department of Defense initially denied the application, citing Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 18.

The applicant appealed this decision; however, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board's review is limited to allegations of harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. In this case, the applicant did not assert any such error.

Consequently, the Appeal Board found no basis to overturn the original denial, and the security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 18raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.”
— ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 10, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 6, 2022
Decision dateMar 18, 2022

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations of Appeal Board Review Authority
Financial Concerns Under Guideline F

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as the applicant's arguments did not meet the threshold for harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge, making the denial of the security clearance sustainable.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
James E. Moody
Moira Modzelewski

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

-------- )

ISCR Case No. 19-02330

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: March 18, 2022

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On April 10, 2020, DoD 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 January 6, 2022, after close of the record, Administrative Judge Mark Harvey 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 argues that he is not a threat to national security and notes that he requires a security clearance to retain his job. The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020).

The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board