CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03479 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-03479denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-03479

Oct 6, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a pattern of financial irresponsibility. The applicant had ten delinquent debts, totaling approximately $59,000, which raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 19.

Despite the Administrative Judge favoring the applicant on four of these debts, the Judge ultimately concluded that the applicant demonstrated a history of not responsibly meeting financial obligations. Furthermore, the applicant failed to take appropriate action to investigate and resolve the remaining delinquent debts.

Although mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 were considered, they were insufficient to overcome the established pattern of financial irresponsibility. The denial of the security clearance was affirmed on appeal, as the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe Judge found in favor of the applicant on four debts but concluded a pattern of financial irresponsibility.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 14, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 18, 2022after close of the record
Decision dateOct 6, 2022

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial When No Harmful Error Is Alleged
Pattern of Delinquent Debts as a Basis for Disqualification

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. The Applicant appealed the decision but did not assert any specific harmful error. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's ruling, maintaining the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.

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 sustainable under the circumstances.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decision

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. 19-03479

)

) 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: October 6, 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 February 14, 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 DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On August 18, 2022, after close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleges ten delinquent debts totaling about $59,000. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on four of those debts and against him on the remaining debts. The Judge concluded: “Applicant has a history of not responsibly meeting financial obligations. He has done little to address his habit of incurring debts for which he cannot pay, or to take appropriate action to investigate and resolve delinquent debts.” Decision at 5.

Applicant’s brief makes no specific assertion that the Judge committed harmful error, but rather provides explanation of the underlying reasons for his financial problems. 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. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. 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