CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-02578 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-02578denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-02578

Jul 12, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance primarily due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to disclose financial problems related to gambling on his security clearance application, which constituted falsification.

Specifically, the judge found against the applicant regarding one bankruptcy and the gambling allegation, citing Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 16 (a) and AG ¶ 15 (a). While other financial matters were viewed favorably, and Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20 (b) and AG ¶ 17 (a) were applied, they were insufficient to overcome the disqualifying issues.

The appeal affirmed the initial denial, as the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's findings. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16 (a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15 (a)raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20 (b)appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge found favorably for the applicant on federal tax allegations.
AG ¶ 17 (a)appliedPersonal ConductThe judge found favorably for the applicant on the termination allegation.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.”
— ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 21, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 5, 2022
Decision dateJul 12, 2022

Cite For

Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Financial Issues Impacting Security Clearance Under Guideline F
Limitations of Appeal Process Regarding Harmful Error Claims

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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Applicant challenged the Judge's findings but did not assert any harmful error. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Administrative Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The appeal was therefore affirmed.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decision

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. 20-02578 ) ) 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: July 12, 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 21, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On May 5, 2022, after close of the record, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged three bankruptcies, two federal tax delinquencies, five delinquent consumer accounts, and a gambling problem. The Judge found against Applicant on one of the alleged bankruptcies and on the gambling allegation. He found favorably for Applicant on all other Guideline F allegations. Under Guideline E, the SOR alleged that Applicant falsified his 2018 security clearance application in that he deliberately failed to disclose that he had financial problems due to gambling. It also alleged that Applicant was terminated from an employment in

2017. The Judge found against Applicant on the falsification allegation and for Applicant on the termination allegation. On appeal, Applicant appears to have misread the Judge’s findings, as he challenges the Judge’s findings regarding his federal tax delinquencies and re-states his efforts to resolve those delinquencies. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on the federal tax allegations. Other than that issue, Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he notes that he requires a security clearance to retain his job and to continue to repay his tax debt. 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). Applicant requests reconsideration of the decision. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. 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