CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01194 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-01194denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01194

Nov 7, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to concerns related to Disqualifying Condition F1. The Department of Defense initially denied the application, a decision subsequently affirmed by the appeal board.

The denial was upheld because the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge during the appeal process. Additionally, the appeal board is prohibited from considering new evidence, meaning any new information the applicant might have wished to present could not be factored into the appeal decision.

Ultimately, the security clearance application was DENIED.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 28, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 31, 2022
Decision dateNov 7, 2022

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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 based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and instead provided additional evidence. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as there was no allegation of harmful error. The decision was affirmed.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Bayard Glendon — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

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 decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge, and the decision was sustainable under the circumstances.

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
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. 20-01194

)

) 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: November 7, 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 August 28, 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 hearing. On August 31, 2022, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Bayard Glendon denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant make no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, he provides additional evidence and information about the circumstances that led to his financial issues and requests reconsideration of the decision. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. Additionally, Applicant highlights that he requires a security clearance to retain his job. The Directive does not

permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020). The 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 made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance 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 Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board