CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01376 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-01376denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-01376

Oct 13, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to 28 delinquent debts. The applicant admitted to these debts, which were identified as a disqualifying condition under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 20.

The judge determined that the applicant had not demonstrated responsible management of his financial obligations, specifically failing to monitor his accounts or resolve the delinquencies. This lack of responsible action was a primary factor in the denial.

The applicant's subsequent appeal was also denied. The appellate authority found no harmful error in the original decision to deny the security clearance, upholding the initial determination based on the applicant's admitted financial irresponsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 3, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 3, 2023
Decision dateOct 13, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Applicant's Admission of Delinquent Debts as a Key Factor in the Decision
Affirmation of Denial on Appeal Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion by the Applicant.

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 eligibility based on financial considerations. The Applicant admitted to the allegations of delinquent debts but did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's appeal did not raise any specific harmful errors.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEric H. Borgstrom — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

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

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
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. 21-01376

)

) 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: October 13, 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 June 3, 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 hearing. On August 3, 2023, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Eric H. Borgstrom denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 28 delinquent debts. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted each allegation. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on two debts and against him on the others. In summarizing the decision, the Judge stated, “Applicant encountered some circumstances beyond his control that contributed to his financial delinquencies; however,

he did not act responsibly to monitor his accounts, maintain contact with creditors, and act affirmatively to resolve his delinquencies. Several accounts remain unaddressed and unresolved.” Decision at 1. Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. Rather, it merely states that he does “not agree with the [Judge’s] decision.” Appeal Brief at 1. 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