CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03200 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-03200denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03200

Mar 9, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The initial denial cited disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19 and AG ¶ 15.

The applicant appealed the decision; however, the appeal was affirmed, and the denial upheld. The appeal board's review is limited to cases where harmful error by the judge is alleged. In this instance, the applicant did not assert any such error.

Consequently, the appeal board found no basis to overturn the initial decision, resulting in the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 20, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 25, 2022Decision issued by Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas.
Decision dateMar 9, 2022Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations of Appeal Board Review Authority
Relevance of Financial Considerations and Personal Conduct in Security Clearance Decisions.

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 and personal conduct. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and sought reconsideration instead. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as there were no allegations of harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

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 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. 20-03200

)

) 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: March 9, 2022

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 20, 2020, 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 decision on the written record. On January 25, 2022, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, he requests reconsideration of the Judge’s decision and provides additional information about the circumstances that led to his financial issues. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. 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