Loading case…

ISCR 20-01808: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2023) · CASE

ISCR Case 20-01808denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01808

Mar 9, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to ten delinquent debts totaling approximately $19,000. The applicant asserted that these debts had been resolved; however, she failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate these claims.

The denial was upheld on appeal. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Consequently, the lack of supporting evidence for the resolution of the significant outstanding debts led to the final denial of the security clearance.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedMay 7, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 26, 2023record closed before hearing
Decision dateMar 9, 2023

Cite for

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Importance of Documentary Evidence in Financial Cases
Limitations of Appeal Review Regarding Harmful Error Claims

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. The Applicant, representing herself, did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of security clearance eligibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeroy F. Foreman denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline 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 decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error committed by the Judge.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy (Chair)
Moira Modzelewski
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. 20-01808

)

) 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: March 9, 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 May 7, 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 DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On January 26, 2023, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Leroy F. Foreman 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 ten debts that were delinquent in the approximate amount of $19,000. At the hearing, the Judge left the record open for about three weeks to provide Applicant the opportunity to submit additional material. Tr. at 41-42. The Judge further commented that Applicant was “in a paper chase . . . to get the documents, so that . . . I can make my decision based on as complete a record as possible.” Id. at 45. In the decision, the Judge noted

he extended the deadline for closing of the record for an additional two weeks at Applicant’s request, but she did not present additional evidence. Decision at 2. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on one medical debt totaling about $130 and against her on the remaining allegations. In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant claimed many of the alleged debts were resolved or were being resolved but failed to submit documentary evidence to support those claims. Applicant’s appeal brief contains new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Her brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. 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 alleged such a harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility 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