A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-01376
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 13, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to 28 delinquent debts. Although he admitted to the debts, the judge found that he failed to manage his financial obligations responsibly. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the original decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to having 28 delinquent debts.
- The judge found that the applicant did not act responsibly to monitor his accounts or resolve his delinquencies.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2022-06-03
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2023-08-03
- Decision date
- 2023-10-13
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
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance eligibility based on financial considerations. The Applicant admitted to having multiple delinquent debts but did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's appeal did not raise any specific harmful errors.
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. 21-01376
)
) 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
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