CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00729 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-00729denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00729

Nov 7, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. This outcome was reached because the applicant did not assert any harmful error committed by the Administrative Judge during the initial review.

The Appeal Board's review process is strictly limited to evaluating allegations of harmful error. Since no such error was asserted, the Board concluded that the Administrative Judge's decision to deny the clearance was sustainable.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedJul 22, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 19, 2022after the record closed
Decision dateNov 7, 2022

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations on Appeal Board's Review Authority
Sustainability of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and provided additional information about his work habits. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as there was no allegation of harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge.

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. 21-00729

)

) 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: November 7, 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 July 22, 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). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 19, 2022, after the record closed, 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. On appeal, Applicant make no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, he requests reversal of the Judge’s decision and provides additional information about his work habits and experience. 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