CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03023 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-03023denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-03023

Mar 9, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from eight delinquent debts, totaling approximately $37,700, and the falsification of a security clearance application.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was denied. The applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision.

Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was affirmed, based on the unresolved financial delinquencies and the personal conduct issue of falsifying the application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

Decision DateMar 9, 2022

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the decision was supported by the record.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
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. 19-03023

)

) 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

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 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