CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 21-01287 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 21-01287

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/28/2022
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 21-01287) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, James E. Moody, 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) issued on June 29, 2021, outlined the financial issues that raised security concerns, prompting the applicant to request a decision based on the written record.
During the proceedings, the applicant did not contest the allegations but instead requested reconsideration of the decision, emphasizing the necessity of a security clearance for job retention. The administrative judge, Elizabeth M. Matchinski, ultimately denied the application for a security clearance on February 23, 2022, citing the financial concerns as significant enough to warrant the denial. The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge, which limited the Appeal Board's review to the existing record.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, stating that the applicant's failure to allege harmful error meant that the denial of the security clearance was sustainable. The Board clarified that it could not consider the potential impact of the decision on the applicant's employment.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For Applicant
- 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. ISCR Case No. 21-01287

Apr 28, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial decision by the Judge found disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19.

The applicant appealed this decision, but did not assert any harmful error by the Judge in the initial ruling. The Appeal Board's review process is strictly limited to addressing allegations of harmful error. Since no such allegations were presented by the applicant, the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 29, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 23, 2022Decision on written record.
Decision dateApr 28, 2022

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Importance of Asserting Harmful Error on Appeal
Criteria for Denial Under Guideline F (financial Considerations)

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 was in response to the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and requested reconsideration based on job requirements. The Board affirmed the denial as no harmful error was alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski — 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 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 Judge, making the denial of the security clearance sustainable.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
James E. Moody
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.