A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-02567
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 10, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced financial concerns under Guideline F, including six consumer debts and an unsatisfied judgment. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error by the judge, despite a discrepancy in the amount of a lawsuit being deemed a harmless error.
Why the applicant was denied
- 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.
- A mere disagreement with the judge's weighing of evidence is insufficient to overturn the decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 21 Financial Considerationsrejected
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-12-02
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2021-09-21 record closed after hearing
- Decision date
- 2022-02-10 appeal 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
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.
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. 20-02567
)
) 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
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