CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03497 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-03497denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03497

Aug 2, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a U.S. security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. These included a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and a failure to file tax returns for the years 2015 through 2018.

The Administrative Judge identified disqualifying conditions F.1 and F.2, noting that the applicant admitted to the allegations of financial misconduct. Crucially, the judge determined that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate these financial concerns.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Accounts

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 15, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMay 27, 2022
Decision dateAug 2, 2022Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error on Appeal
Impact of Failure to File Tax Returns on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 due to financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's appeal did not raise any specific harmful errors.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoss D. Hyams — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert that the Judge committed harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's decision denying security clearance eligibility.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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. 20-03497

)

) 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: August 2, 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 February 15, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On May 27, 2022, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Ross D. Hyams denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in about 2013 and owed about $3,300 in delinquent Federal taxes for 2009 at the time of the bankruptcy filing; that he failed to file Federal and state income tax returns for 2015-2018 as required; and that he was indebted to his state for about $5,700 in delinquent taxes, interest, and penalties for 2015 and 2016. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted each of the SOR allegations and provided a lengthy explanation contending the alleged security concerns were mitigated. In finding against Applicant on each of the SOR allegations, the Judge concluded, “Applicant did not provide

sufficient information to mitigate the financial considerations security concern about his failure to timely file Federal and state income tax returns, and pay outstanding Federal and state tax debt.” Decision at 1. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion that the Judge committed harmful error in his decision. Rather, it contains documents that were not previously provided to the Judge for consideration and makes assertions based on those documents. Those documents and assertions constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal 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 alleged any harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility 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