A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-03479
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 6, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced financial concerns under Guideline F due to ten delinquent debts totaling approximately $59,000. The Administrative Judge found a pattern of financial irresponsibility despite favoring the applicant on four debts, leading to the denial of the security clearance. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not allege harmful error in the Judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had ten delinquent debts totaling approximately $59,000.
- The Judge concluded that the applicant has a history of not responsibly meeting financial obligations.
- The applicant did not take appropriate action to investigate and resolve delinquent debts.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsrejected
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-02-14
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2022-08-18 after close of the record
- Decision date
- 2022-10-06
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
The appeal involved an Applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations. The Administrative Judge found against the Applicant on several debts while ruling in favor on others. The Applicant appealed but did not assert any specific harmful error. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as sustainable based on the lack of harmful error allegations.
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. 19-03479
)
) 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
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