CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03096 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-03096denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-03096

May 4, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance primarily due to significant financial issues under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had ongoing delinquent federal tax debts exceeding $200,000 and state tax debts of approximately $1,300. Additionally, he failed to timely file federal tax returns for multiple years, which raised security concerns.

While the judge found in favor of the applicant on some allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the persistent tax debts and failure to file returns were central to the denial. Disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 19 and 16 were raised, though mitigating conditions under Paragraphs 20 and 17 were also applied.

Ultimately, the denial was upheld on appeal, with the ongoing financial obligations and non-compliance with tax filing requirements being the decisive factors.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 16raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20appliedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 17rejectedPersonal ConductThe judge found in favor of the applicant on some allegations but not on the key financial issues.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to matters in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 22, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 14, 2023
Decision dateMay 4, 2023Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Ongoing Tax Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Limitations of Appeal Process Regarding Harmful Error Assertions

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 security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Applicant did not claim any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
Allison Marie

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. 19-03096

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: May 4, 2023

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 November 22, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision⸺security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On March 14, 2023, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged twelve federal tax concerns, including that Applicant failed to timely file returns for tax years 2011 and 2014 through 2018; that he carried a delinquent tax balance in the approximate amount of $317,000 for tax years 2008 through 2011, 2016, and 2017; that the 2008, 2009, and 2010 balances were reduced to a lien in 2013 and the 2011 balance was reduced to a lien in 2016; that another lien was entered against him in 2010 for about $5,400; and that he previously owed delinquent balances of about $20,000 for tax year 2014 and about $52,000 for tax year 2015, which were not paid until 2016 and 2017, respectively. The SOR also alleged two state tax concerns, including a previously delinquent balance of about $3,000 that was resolved through payments, and an outstanding state tax lien entered against Applicant in 2019 for about $1,300. Under Guideline E, the SOR alleged that Applicant committed fraud in preparation

of his 2008 through 2010 federal tax returns and that, as amended, he deliberately failed to disclose certain alleged tax problems in his February 2020 security clearance application. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on all Guideline E allegations and six Guideline F allegations, but against him for his failure to timely file federal returns for tax years 2011 and 2014 through 2018 and the remaining Guideline F allegations, which represented over $200,000 in ongoing delinquent federal tax debt for years 2009, 2011, 2016, and 2017, and about $1,300 in ongoing state tax debt. On appeal, Applicant does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. Rather, he states that he may have not explained himself correctly at hearing regarding the SOR concerns and requests an opportunity to clarify his position. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to matters in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not alleged any such harmful error, and therefore the Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board