CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01279 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 21-01279

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date12/8/2022
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 21-01279) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Jennifer I. Goldstein, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $32,000, which raised significant security concerns regarding financial responsibility.
In the proceedings, the administrative judge found that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the financial issues presented in the SOR. The applicant did not contest the existence of the debts but did not provide compelling evidence of a plan to resolve them or demonstrate financial stability. The applicant submitted additional documents after the judge's decision, but these were not considered by the Appeal Board as they fell outside the scope of permissible evidence for review.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, stating that the applicant had not alleged any harmful error in the judge's ruling. The Board emphasized that its review was limited to the record established by the judge and that the absence of claims of harmful error rendered the denial of the security clearance sustainable.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-01279

Dec 8, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a U.S. security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from eight delinquent debts, which collectively totaled approximately $32,000.

The Administrative Judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to these financial considerations, citing Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19. The applicant did not allege any harmful error in the judge's ruling when the case was reviewed by the Appeal Board.

Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, resulting in the denial of the applicant's security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 7, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 4, 2022Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateDec 8, 2022

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial When No Harmful Error Is Alleged on Appeal
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence

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. 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 belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion 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, and the Judge's decision was sustainable based on the record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Moira D. 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.