A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-01808
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 9, 2023 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to financial issues, specifically ten delinquent debts totaling approximately $19,000. The applicant's claims of resolving these debts were unsupported by evidence, leading to the denial being upheld on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had ten delinquent debts totaling approximately $19,000.
- The applicant failed to provide documentary evidence to support claims of resolving debts.
- The appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
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
- 2021-05-07
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2023-01-26 record closed before hearing
- Decision date
- 2023-03-09
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
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of security clearance eligibility.
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. 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
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