A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-02234
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 30, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to seven delinquent debts and falsification of his security clearance application. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error by the judge, affirming the unfavorable decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had seven delinquent debts.
- The applicant falsified his security clearance application by failing to disclose debts.
- The appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 16 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The impact that an unfavorable security clearance decision has on an applicant is not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-12-16
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2023-07-18
- Decision date
- 2023-08-30
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
- Limitations of Appeal Process Regarding Harmful Error Assertions
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 and personal conduct. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The 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. 21-02234
)
) 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: August 30, 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 16, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) 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 July 18, 2023, after close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Pamela C. Benson denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had seven delinquent debts and that he falsified his 2020 security clearance application by deliberately failing to disclose those debts. The Judge found against Applicant on two of the debt allegations and on the falsification allegation.
Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. Rather, it discusses the reasons for his delinquent debts, asserts that he is trustworthy and responsible, and notes that his security clearance is necessary to continue his employment. On this last point, the impact that an unfavorable security clearance decision has on an applicant is not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 22-01232 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Apr. 13, 2023). His appeal brief also contains new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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