CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02272 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-02272denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-02272

Dec 22, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to four delinquent debts totaling approximately $51,000. The Administrative Judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to these financial concerns, citing Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19.

The applicant subsequently appealed the decision. However, the appeal did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge in the initial ruling.

Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, upholding the Administrative Judge's findings regarding the applicant's financial considerations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 1, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldOct 20, 2022Decision made after considering the written record.
Decision dateDec 22, 2022

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial When No Harmful Error Is Asserted 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, representing herself, did not assert any harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's claims did not establish any grounds for reversal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief makes no assertion that the Judge committed harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's findings or conclusions.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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. 21-02272

)

) 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: December 22, 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 December 1, 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 October 20, 2022, after considering the written record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 had four delinquent debts totaling about $51,000. The Judge found against Applicant on each of those allegations. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion that the Judge committed harmful error. It does, however, contain documents that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

In her brief, Applicant makes assertions regarding the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency’s (DCSA) processing of the SOR. The Board has no authority over DCSA’s policies and actions in processing SORs. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-04097 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 30, 2019). Applicant’s assertions do not establish that the SOR was defective or that DCSA violated or prejudiced her rights under Executive Order 10865 or the Directive. 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 such a 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