A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-00989
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 24, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial concerns. The appeal was based on claims of inadequate reporting channels for financial issues and lack of notice regarding clearance revocation. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the original decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not demonstrate harmful error in the judge's decision.
- The applicant's claims regarding her status as Facility Security Officer were not substantiated by evidence.
- The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and requires a claim of harmful error to reconsider evidence.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“Our authority to review is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-07-06
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2021-07-06 Decision on written record.
- Decision date
- 2022-01-24 Appeal 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
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant, representing herself, did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no basis for the claims made by the Applicant regarding her status as Facility Security Officer and her request for further consideration of her credit report.
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. 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
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