CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00989 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00989denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00989

Jan 24, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed the decision, arguing that there were inadequate reporting channels for financial issues and that she lacked notice regarding clearance revocation. She also claimed to be a Facility Security Officer, which she asserted should have provided her with different avenues for addressing financial concerns.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the judge's original decision. The Board noted that the applicant did not substantiate her claims regarding her Facility Security Officer status with evidence. As the Appeal Board does not review cases de novo, it requires a claim of harmful error to reconsider evidence, which the applicant did not demonstrate.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Our authority to review is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error.”
— ISCR Case No. 18-01962 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 29, 2019)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 6, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 6, 2021Decision on written record.
Decision dateJan 24, 2022Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Demonstrating Harmful Error in Appeals

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 concerned the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

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.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error alleged by the Applicant and affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision denying the security clearance.

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
James E. Moody
Moira 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. 20-00989

)

) 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: January 24, 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 July 6, 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 Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On July 6, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. She does, however, aver that her status as the Facility Security Officer (FSO) for her employer adversely affected her in two ways: first, she did not have anyone to whom she could report her financial issues; and, second, she was not served with notice of the revocation of her clearance.

Additionally, she states that she has made efforts to re-establish a solid credit history and requests further consideration of the credit report she submitted to the Administrative Judge. Turning first to her status as FSO, the SOR did not allege a failure-to-report, and a review of the record confirms that no evidence or argument referenced any such failure on her part. Nor does the Judge’s decision. Moreover, although the record does not establish how Applicant received her notice of denial of her security clearance, the record does confirm that she filed a Notice of Appeal, was duly provided with instructions on how to appeal, and subsequently filed her appeal, after one extension was granted. A review of the entire record discloses no basis to conclude that Applicant was denied the rights due her under the Directive or that she had not been adequately advised of those rights. See, e.g., ISCR Case No 15-04472 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 9, 2017). Turning next to Applicant’s request for further consideration of a previously-submitted credit report, the Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Our authority to review is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-01962 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 29, 2019). Applicant has made no such allegation. The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is affirmed.

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 Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board