A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-03137
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 11, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to significant financial issues, including 12 delinquent debts totaling approximately $143,000 and failure to file tax returns from 2015 to 2021. The applicant admitted to the allegations but did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns, leading to the affirmation of the denial on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to having 12 delinquent debts totaling approximately $143,000.
- The applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns from 2015 to 2021.
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2022-05-15
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2023-04-25 Decision based on written record.
- Decision date
- 2023-07-11 Appeal 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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board found that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision, leading to the affirmation of the denial.
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. 20-03137
)
) 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
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