A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-02414
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 14, 2022 · Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to six delinquent debts totaling approximately $34,000. Despite admitting to the debts and providing explanations, the appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, and the appeal board could not consider new evidence. The decision to deny the security clearance was affirmed.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to six delinquent debts totaling approximately $34,000.
- The appeal board found no assertion of harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-01-05
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2022-07-18 Record closed.
- Decision date
- 2022-10-14 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations of Appeal Process Regarding New Evidence
- Importance of Asserting Harmful Error for Successful Appeals
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 did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and provided additional information regarding her financial issues, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
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. 21-02414
)
) 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 14, 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 January 5, 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 Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On July 18, 2022, after the record closed, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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 six delinquent debts. In answering the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations with explanation. She did not submit a response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material. The Judge found against Applicant on all six delinquencies, which totaled about $34,000.
On appeal, Applicant make no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, she provides additional information about the circumstances that led to her financial issues. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. Applicant also asserts that loss of her security clearance would cause her financial hardship and notes that she does not have access to classified information. Those matters, however, are not relevant considerations in evaluating clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01098 at 1-2 (App. Bd. May 11, 2020). The Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge 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 Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board