CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02655 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02655denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02655

Mar 16, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant unresolved financial issues. The applicant had seven child support accounts in arrears, totaling approximately $56,000. Additionally, there were four delinquent consumer debts amounting to nearly $2,700.

The judge found against the applicant on most of the financial allegations, with the exception of one consumer debt. Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19 was raised, while Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c) were considered but ultimately not sufficient to overcome the concerns.

The denial was affirmed on appeal, as the applicant did not claim any harmful error in the initial decision. The substantial child support arrears and multiple delinquent consumer debts were the primary reasons for the final denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's financial issues were ongoing and significant.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Applicant Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay DebtsThe applicant did not demonstrate sufficient evidence of good faith efforts to resolve debts.

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 issuedOct 28, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJan 4, 2022Decision made by Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr.
Decision dateMar 16, 2022Decision 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's error regarding the duplicate debt was harmless and did not affect the outcome. The Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and thus the decision was affirmed.

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 D. 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. 19-02655

)

) 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

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 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