A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-00052
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 9, 2023 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, appealed a decision denying his security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was denied as the applicant failed to provide specific issues or evidence of error in the administrative judge's decision, leading to the conclusion that no harmful error occurred.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal brief lacked specificity and did not establish a prima facie case of due process violation or harmful error.
- The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and found no material issues raised by the applicant.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility is sustainable because Applicant’s brief fails to raise sufficiently a material issue of harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2022-06-28
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2023-03-16
- Decision date
- 2023-06-09
Cite for
- Insufficient Specificity in Appeal Briefs Under Directive ¶ E3.1.30
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Scope Under Directive ¶ E3.1.32
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Material Issues Raised in Appeal.
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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant appealed, claiming he did not receive a fair decision, but provided no specific basis for this assertion. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.
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. 21-00052
)
) 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: June 9, 2023
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se On June 28, 2022, Department of Defense (DoD) issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant that his conduct raised security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) (AG) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On March 16, 2023, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeal Administrative Judge Benjamin R. Dorsey concluded that it is not consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief merely asserts that “I feel like I did not get a fair decision from the Administrative Judge.” He provides no explanation of his basis for that assertion. There is no presumption of error below. Directive ¶ E3.1.30 provides that an appeal brief must state the specific issue or issues being raised and cite specific portions of the case record supporting any
alleged error. Applicant’s brief fails for lack of specificity. More specifically, it does not establish a prima facie case of a due process violation or any other error. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Our scope of review is limited to addressing material issues raised by the parties to determine whether harmful error occurred. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. The decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility is sustainable because Applicant’s brief fails to raise sufficiently a material issue of harmful error.
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