CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02414 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-02414denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-02414

Oct 14, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to six admitted delinquent debts totaling approximately $34,000. The applicant acknowledged these debts and offered explanations for them.

However, the appeal board affirmed the denial. The board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error committed by the judge in the initial decision. Furthermore, the appeal board was unable to consider any new evidence presented during the appeal process.

Consequently, the decision to deny the security clearance was upheld, based on the applicant's admitted financial delinquencies and the procedural limitations of the appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedJan 5, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJul 18, 2022Record closed.
Decision dateOct 14, 2022Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and provided additional information about her financial issues, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge, and the decision was sustainable based on the record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Moira 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. 21-02414

)

) 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

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 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