A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-02237
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 7, 2023 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced denial of a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F due to eight delinquent debts. The Administrative Judge found against the applicant on six allegations, and the appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any errors by the Judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had eight delinquent debts, which raised concerns under Guideline F.
- The Administrative Judge found against the applicant on six allegations related to the debts.
- The applicant did not assert any errors in the Judge's decision during the appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.3 Failure to meet financial obligationsraised
- F.4 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Procedural posture
- Decision date
- 2023-03-07
Cite for
- Denial of Trustworthiness Designation Under Guideline F Due to Delinquent Debts
- Affirmation of Appeal When No Errors Are Asserted by the Applicant
- Consideration of Multiple Delinquent Debts as a Significant Concern for Security Clearance
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
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: )
)
)
----- )
ADP Case No. 19-02237
)
) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) _______________________________________) 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: March 7, 2023
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. On November 10, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On January 13, 2023, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Eric C. Price denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had eight delinquent debts. In responding to the SOR, Applicant denied each of the allegations and provided explanatory comments, including that he retained a debt resolution company. The Judge found against Applicant on six of the allegations.
Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert that the Judge committed any error. He does, however, indicate that he has evidence to submit if provided the opportunity. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not conduct a de novo review of a case but rather is tasked to address material issues raised by the parties to determine whether the Judge committed harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying him a trustworthiness designation is sustainable.
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board