CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03137 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-03137denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03137

Jul 11, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The applicant admitted to having 12 delinquent debts totaling approximately $143,000. Additionally, he failed to file federal and state income tax returns for seven consecutive years, from 2015 to 2021.

These admitted financial problems raised disqualifying condition F.1. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate these concerns during the initial review.

On appeal, the denial was affirmed. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, leading to the final decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 15, 2022
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldApr 25, 2023Decision based on written record.
Decision dateJul 11, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Failure to Mitigate Financial Issues
Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion

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

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowStephanie C. Hess — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

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 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. 20-03137

)

) 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: July 11, 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 15, 2022, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective Jun. 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On April 25, 2023, after considering the written record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Stephanie C. Hess denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 12 delinquent debts totaling about $143,000 and that he failed to file, as required, Federal and state income tax returns from 2015 to 2021. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted the SOR allegations with comments. The Judge concluded

Applicant failed to mitigate the alleged security concerns arising from those allegations and found against Applicant on each allegation. Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of documents and assertions that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. 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: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board