CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01563 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-01563denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-01563

Sep 27, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple financial issues. These issues included a failure to file tax returns and various delinquent debts.

The initial decision cited Disqualifying Conditions F.1 and F.2, which address a history of not meeting financial obligations and an unwillingness to resolve debts. The applicant appealed this decision, but the appeal board found no harmful error in the original ruling.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge's decision, which found against him on numerous financial allegations, contained any reversible error. The denial of the appeal upheld the original decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFailure to File Annual Income Tax Returns
F.2raisedDelinquent Debts

Procedural Posture

Decision dateSep 27, 2022

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Appeal Board Decisions Regarding Financial Allegations
Failure to Demonstrate Harmful Error in Appeal Process

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 Board affirmed the denial of security clearance eligibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGina L. Marine — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert 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 appeal was limited to the record established by the Administrative Judge.

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

----- )

ISCR Case No. 21-01563

)

) 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: September 27, 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 October 28, 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 DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On July 25, 2022, after considering the written record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file his Federal and state income tax returns for 2017 and 2018 as required, that he owed about $2,300 in delinquent Federal taxes for 2019, and that he had four delinquent debts totaling about $4,600. The Judge found against Applicant on the tax allegations and one delinquent debt totaling about $3,800.

Applicant’s brief makes no assertion that the Judge committed harmful error. Rather, it contains a number of documents that postdate the Judge’s decision. It also contains assertions that were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal 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 alleged any harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility 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 D. Modzelewski Moira D. Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board