CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-02567 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-02567denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-02567

Feb 10, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a U.S. security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from six consumer debts and an unsatisfied judgment.

Disqualifying conditions under Guideline F, specifically AG ¶ 20, were raised. While mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 21 were applied, they were ultimately insufficient to overcome the security concerns.

The appeal was denied because the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error by the judge. The appeal board found no merit in the applicant's claims regarding the judge's findings, concluding that a mere disagreement with the judge's weighing of evidence is insufficient to overturn the decision. A discrepancy in the amount of a lawsuit was deemed a harmless error and did not alter the outcome.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's claims regarding the judge's findings did not establish mitigating circumstances.

Key Rule Quoted

“A mere disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence is insufficient to establish the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.”
— ISCR Case No. 18-01962 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 29, 2019)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 2, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 21, 2021record closed after hearing
Decision dateFeb 10, 2022appeal affirmed

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Harmless Error Doctrine in Security Clearance Cases
Limitations on Appeal Regarding the Review of Evidence Weighing by Judges

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 argued that the Judge erred in the amount of a lawsuit against him but did not assert any other harmful errors. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error that affected the outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued the Judge erred in finding the amount of a lawsuit against him.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any other specific harmful error.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the Applicant did not allege any harmful error that would warrant overturning the decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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. 20-02567

)

) 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: February 10, 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 December 2, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of 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 September 21, 2021, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged nine financial concerns under Guideline F—six consumer debts, an unsatisfied judgment, and two dismissed Chapter 7 bankruptcy filings. The Judge found for Applicant on the two bankruptcy allegations and against Applicant on the remaining seven delinquent debts. Applicant notes that the Judge erred in finding that he had been sued in the amount of $25,000 over the purchase of a failed business, when in fact he had been sued in the amount of $365,000. The lawsuit is not alleged in the SOR, nor is any related debt. This was a harmless error as it did not likely have an impact on the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01220 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 1, 2020).

Besides that error, Applicant’s appeal brief makes no other assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, Applicant re-states information regarding his debts that was previously provided to the Judge, both in documents submitted by Applicant and in his testimony at the hearing. A mere disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence is insufficient to establish the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-01962 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 29, 2019). Because Applicant has not alleged any harmful 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board