Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 19-03023

Appeal Board

Decided Mar 9, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $37,700 and falsification of a security clearance application. The appeal was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error by the judge, resulting in the affirmation of the denial.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $37,700.
  • The applicant falsified a security clearance application.
  • The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
  • AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised

Procedural posture

Decision Date
2022-03-09

Cite for

  • Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Delinquency Under Guideline F
  • Denial of Security Clearance Due to Falsification of Application Under Guideline E
  • Affirmation of Denial When Harmful Error Is Not Demonstrated on Appeal.

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations and personal conduct issues. The applicant did not assert any harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

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

Full decision

Open original PDF

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

Decision text, by section

Appearances

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

)

-------- )

ISCR Case No. 19-03023

)

) 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 9, 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 November 15, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) 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 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 eight delinquent debts totaling about $37,700 and falsified a 2018 security clearance application by failing to disclose his delinquent debts. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the allegations. Applicant’s brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a document 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. Applicant also notes that the adverse decision will have a negative impact on him and his family, but a decision’s impact is not a relevant consideration in assessing an individual’s security clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-02397 at 1-2 (App. Bd. May 6, 2020). 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: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira D. Modzelewski Moira D. Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board