CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00962 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-00962denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00962

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

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The applicant owed approximately $18,600 in delinquent federal taxes for 2019 and 2020, and about $1,600 in delinquent state taxes. Additionally, the applicant failed to file required federal and state income tax returns for 2018.

Further financial concerns included three other delinquent debts totaling approximately $90,000. These issues collectively triggered Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was denied. The denial was upheld because the applicant did not demonstrate that the judge committed any harmful error in the original decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 20, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 8, 2022Decision based on written record.
Decision dateJan 9, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial When No Harmful Error Is Demonstrated
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority

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 belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the appeal.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Moira D. Modzelewski

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. 21-00962

)

) 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: January 9, 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 December 20, 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 decision on the written record. On November 8, 2022, after considering the written record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR contains eight allegations. The Judge found against Applicant on seven of those allegations, which include that Applicant owed about $18,600 in delinquent Federal taxes for 2019 and 2020, that he owed about $1,600 in delinquent state taxes; that he failed to file his Federal and state income tax returns for 2018 as required, and that he had three other delinquent debts totaling about $90,000. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion that the Judge committed harmful

error. He does assert that he can provide additional information if it is needed. The Appeal Board, however, is prohibited from receiving or considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal 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: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira D. Modzelewski Moira D. Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board