CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02525 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-02525denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-02525

Aug 29, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 12 delinquent debts totaling over $38,000. The Administrative Judge found that while the applicant acknowledged the allegations, he did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns.

Specifically, the Judge found against the applicant on six of the debts. Although the applicant stated some debts were paid, the evidence presented was insufficient to resolve the overall financial concerns.

The denial was affirmed on appeal, as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. Disqualifying condition AG ¶ 19 was raised, while mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), and AG ¶ 20(c) were considered but ultimately did not overcome the security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant did not demonstrate that the financial issues were resolved or that they were not recent.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedThe Individual Has Received CounselingThe applicant did not provide evidence of financial counseling.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Individual Has a Good Track Record of Financial ResponsibilityThe applicant's financial history indicated ongoing issues.

Key Rule Quoted

“The 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 issuedDec 16, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldJul 15, 2022Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateAug 29, 2022Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeal 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 involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant admitted to having delinquent debts but did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's appeal did not meet the threshold for harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — denied the clearance (split findings)

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 Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, 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. 21-02525

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: August 29, 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 16, 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 15, 2022, after the record closed, Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy 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 12 delinquent debts. In answering the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations, noting that several smaller accounts had been paid off. He did not submit a response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material. The Judge found for Applicant on six smaller debts and against Applicant on the remaining six, which totaled over $38,000.

On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, he requests reconsideration of the Judge’s decision and provides additional information about the circumstances that led to his financial issues and his efforts to resolve them. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. The 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 made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance 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