A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-03497
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 2, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to financial issues, including a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and failure to file tax returns from 2015 to 2018. The Administrative Judge found that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns, leading to a denial that was affirmed on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to the allegations of financial misconduct.
- The judge found insufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns raised in the SOR.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
- F.2 Delinquent accountsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-02-15
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2022-05-27
- Decision date
- 2022-08-02 Decision 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
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.
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. 20-03497
)
) 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
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