CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03668 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-03668denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03668

Feb 10, 2022· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied clearance primarily under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), with Guideline E (Personal Conduct) also considered. The denial stemmed from two significant, disqualifying debts under Guideline F, specifically F3 and F1.

While the judge made favorable findings for the applicant on other debts and personal conduct allegations, applying mitigating conditions F2 and E2, the two outstanding debts were sufficient for denial. The applicant's subsequent appeal affirmed the judge's decision, as she failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's findings regarding her financial situation.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

F2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Beyond the Applicant's ControlThe judge found no evidence to support this claim.
E2rejectedThe Applicant Has Taken Positive Steps to Address Her Financial SituationThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of positive steps taken.

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.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.32

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 5, 2021
Answer filednull
Hearing heldNov 16, 2021
Decision dateFeb 10, 2022Decision 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not raise any specific harmful errors in the appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not raise an explicit allegation of harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
James E. Moody
Jennifer I. Goldstein

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. 20-03668

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: February 10, 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 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