CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00052 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-00052denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00052

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

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, appealed the denial of his security clearance, which was based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The administrative judge's initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The Appeal Board ultimately denied the applicant's appeal. The Board found that the applicant's appeal brief lacked specificity and failed to establish a prima facie case of due process violation or harmful error in the administrative judge's decision.

As the Appeal Board does not review cases de novo, and the applicant did not raise any material issues or provide evidence of error, the Board concluded that no harmful error occurred. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedJun 28, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 16, 2023
Decision dateJun 9, 2023

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal concerned the denial of the applicant's security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant, representing himself, claimed 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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBenjamin R. Dorsey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant asserted that he did not receive a fair decision from the Administrative Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the applicant's appeal brief did not raise a material issue of harmful error, and thus the Administrative Judge's decision was sustainable.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo de-novo re-decision

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. 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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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