A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-00962
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 9, 2023 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to significant financial issues, including delinquent taxes and unfiled tax returns. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the original decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant owed approximately $18,600 in delinquent federal taxes for 2019 and 2020.
- The applicant owed about $1,600 in delinquent state taxes.
- The applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for 2018 as required.
- The applicant had three other delinquent debts totaling about $90,000.
- The applicant did not assert that the judge committed harmful error in the appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-12-20
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2022-11-08 Decision based on written record.
- Decision date
- 2023-01-09 Appeal 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
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.
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. 21-00962
)
) 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
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