Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 20-03200

Appeal Board

Decided Mar 9, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, leading to the upholding of the initial denial.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant did not assert harmful error on the part of the judge during the appeal.
  • The appeal board is limited to reviewing cases where harmful error is alleged, which was not the case here.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
  • AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised

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 issued
2020-12-20
Answer filed
Hearing held
2022-01-25 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas.
Decision date
2022-03-09 Appeal 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

The appeal involved an Applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Applicant appealed the decision but did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's appeal did not meet the threshold for harmful error.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Appearances

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

)

-------- )

ISCR Case No. 20-03200

)

) 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