A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-02655
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 16, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to significant financial issues, including seven child support accounts in arrears totaling approximately $56,000 and four delinquent consumer debts totaling nearly $2,700. The judge found one consumer debt in favor of the applicant but ruled against him on the remaining debts, leading to an affirmed denial on appeal as no harmful error was claimed by the applicant.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had seven child support accounts in arrears totaling about $56,000.
- The applicant had four delinquent consumer debts totaling almost $2,700.
- The judge found against the applicant on most financial allegations, except one consumer debt.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(a) The behavior was not recentrejected
- AG ¶ 20(c) The applicant has made good faith efforts to repay debtsrejected
Key rule quoted
“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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2019-10-28
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2022-01-04 Decision made by Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr.
- Decision date
- 2022-03-16 Decision affirmed on appeal.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Affirmation of a Decision Where No Harmful Error Was Alleged on Appeal
- Consideration of Duplicate Debts in Financial Assessments
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 security clearance based on financial considerations, specifically child support arrears and delinquent debts. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, noting that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error and that the Judge's error regarding a duplicate debt was harmless. The outcome of the case remained unchanged.
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. 19-02655
)
) 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 16, 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 October 28, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On January 4, 2022, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had seven child support accounts in arrears totaling about $56,000 and four delinquent consumer debts totaling almost $2,700. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on one of the consumer debts and against him on the other allegations, including a child support debt that the Judge stated “appears to be a duplicate of [another alleged debt].” Decision at 2. In the past, we have stated that, when a specific debt is alleged more than once in the SOR, the Judge should enter, if the record evidence warrants, only one adverse finding regarding that debt. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-01371 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 16, 2018). While the Judge’s adverse
finding regarding the duplicate debt was a noticeable error, it was harmless because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02239 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 20, 2020). Applicant’s brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents and assertions that were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases de novo. 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. Because Applicant has not alleged any harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility 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 D. Modzelewski Moira D. Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board