A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-02272
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 22, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to four delinquent debts totaling approximately $51,000. The Administrative Judge found against the applicant on all allegations, and the Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had four delinquent debts totaling approximately $51,000.
- The Administrative Judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to financial considerations.
- The applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error by the Judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-12-01
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2022-10-20 Decision made after considering the written record.
- Decision date
- 2022-12-22
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
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant, representing herself, did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's claims did not establish any grounds for reversal.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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