A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-02525
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 29, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial issues, specifically 12 delinquent debts totaling over $38,000. Although the applicant acknowledged some debts were paid off, the Administrative Judge found against him on six debts and affirmed the denial on appeal, as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had 12 delinquent debts totaling over $38,000.
- The applicant admitted to the allegations but did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(a) The behavior was not recentrejected
- AG ¶ 20(b) The individual has received counselingrejected
- AG ¶ 20(c) The individual has a good track record of financial responsibilityrejected
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 issued
- 2021-12-16
- Answer filed
- Applicant represented himself.
- Hearing held
- 2022-07-15 Decision made on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2022-08-29 Appeal 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
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.
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. 21-02525
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: August 29, 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 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