CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02327 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-02327denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-02327

Oct 3, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 11 delinquent debts totaling over $37,000. This decision was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a).

During the process, the applicant admitted to the 11 delinquent debts. He attempted to argue that two of these debts were duplicates, but he failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied, affirming the original ruling. The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge, which is a necessary condition for overturning such a decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 28, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 2, 2022Decision based on written record.
Decision dateOct 3, 2022Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Requirements for Demonstrating Harmful Error in Appeals
Insufficient Evidence to Prove Duplicate Debts in Financial Cases

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 concerned the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant admitted to the debts alleged in the Statement of Reasons but did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — 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 allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and therefore the decision of the Administrative Judge was sustainable.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
James E. Moody
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. 21-02327

)

) 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: October 3, 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 August 2, 2022, after considering the written record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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 11 delinquent debts totaling over $37,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted each of the allegations. The Judge found against Applicant on ten of the alleged debts. Applicant’s brief asserts that the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d “may be” and “appears” to be a duplicate of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.k. Appeal Brief at 1 and 5. He does not explain the basis for that supposition. While both allegations list the same collection agency as the creditor, we see no other reason to conclude these allegations are duplicates. Of note, Item 4 of the File of Relevant Material (FORM) reflects that a judgment was entered against Applicant in September 2018 for

the debt in SOR ¶ 1.k, while a credit report dated August 26, 2021 (FORM Item 6 at 2) lists the debt in SOR ¶ 1.das a collection account. The amounts of the two debts are close but not exact. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted both debts, indicated he was making payments on both debts, noted he did not have a copy of the payment agreement for one of them, and did not assert they were duplicate debts. In short, Applicant has failed to demonstrate these two allegations are duplicates. Moreover, even if these two allegations were duplicates, it is unlikely such an error would have had changed the outcome of this case. The remainder of Applicant’s brief is an update on the status of the alleged debts. In providing this update, Applicant makes assertions and submits documents embedded in the brief that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from receiving or 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira D. Modzelewski Moira D. Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board