CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02234 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-02234denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-02234

Aug 30, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance primarily under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from two main issues: the applicant had seven delinquent debts, and he falsified his security clearance application by failing to disclose these debts.

The applicant appealed the initial unfavorable decision. However, the appeal was denied because the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error on the part of the judge who made the initial determination.

Consequently, the original decision to deny the security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 16raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The impact that an unfavorable security clearance decision has on an applicant is not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility.”
— ISCR Case No. 22-01232 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Apr. 13, 2023)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 16, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 18, 2023
Decision dateAug 30, 2023

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance eligibility based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Applicant did not assert any harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision, leading the Board to affirm the denial. The Board noted that the impact of the decision on the Applicant's employment was not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPamela C. Benson — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

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 committed by the Judge, and the appeal did not present grounds for overturning the denial of security clearance eligibility.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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. 21-02234

)

) 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

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 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