A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-03668
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 10, 2022 · Administrative Judge James E. Moody · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security clearance denial primarily due to financial concerns under Guideline F, specifically two significant debts. The appeal affirmed the judge's decision, as the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error in the judge's findings regarding her financial situation. While the judge found against the applicant on two debts, he entered favorable findings on other debts and personal conduct allegations.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had two significant debts that were disqualifying under Guideline F.
- The applicant's appeal did not raise any harmful errors regarding the judge's decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F3 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
- F1 A history of not meeting financial obligationsraised
Mitigating
- F2 The conditions that resulted in the financial difficulties were beyond the applicant's controlrejected
- E2 The applicant has taken positive steps to address her financial situationrejected
Key rule quoted
“We do not review cases de novo, and our review authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-01-05
- Answer filed
- null
- Hearing held
- 2021-11-16
- Decision date
- 2022-02-10 Decision affirmed on appeal.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Debts Under Guideline F
- Affirmation of Judge's Decision When No Harmful Error Is Demonstrated
- Limitations of Appeal Review Authority Regarding Evidence and Claims Raised
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 a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not raise any explicit harmful errors in the appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious weighing of evidence.
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. 20-03668
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: February 10, 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 January 5, 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 Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On March 31, 2021, Department Counsel amended the SOR to add Guideline E (Personal Conduct) allegations and requested a hearing. On November 16, 2021, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged ten delinquent debts under Guideline F. The Judge found against Applicant on two of those concerns—a $15,000 debt arising from a vehicle repossession and a charged-off debt in the amount of $685 owed to a bank. The Judge entered favorable findings regarding the remaining eight Guideline F allegations and on the two allegations arising under Guideline E.
Applicant’s brief does not raise an explicit allegation of harmful error by the Judge. Rather, she provides background and context for her adverse financial situation. Her presentation includes matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. To the extent that Applicant is implicitly arguing that the Judge erred in weighing the record evidence, we find no reason to conclude that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-03941 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 21, 2022). Applicant requests that we grant additional time to enable her to address her financial difficulties. The record does not support the application of any of the exceptions listed under Appendix C of the Directive. Other than these matters, Applicant’s brief raises no issue that we are authorized to consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32 for a description of the Appeal Board’s jurisdiction. We do not review cases de novo, and our review authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 20-00989 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 24, 2022). Accordingly, the decision of the Judge is affirmed.
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board