A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-02330
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 18, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial concerns. The Department of Defense denied the application, and the Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error on the part of the judge.
- The Appeal Board's review is limited to allegations of harmful error.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 18 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-04-10
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2022-01-06
- Decision date
- 2022-03-18
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
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.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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