CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00058 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00058denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 22-00058

Jun 1, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to respond to the Government's Statement of Reasons (SOR) and supporting evidence within the allotted time.

The applicant appealed the denial, asserting he had not received the Government's file. However, evidence presented to the Appeal Board indicated the applicant had acknowledged receipt of the FORM containing the SOR and evidence. Despite this acknowledgment, he did not submit a response.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated he was denied the opportunity to respond to the Government's evidence. The Board emphasized that national security considerations necessitate a thorough review of financial concerns, and the applicant's failure to engage with the process led to the final decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 18, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJun 1, 2023Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Acknowledging Receipt of Evidence in Security Clearance Cases
Emphasis on National Security in Clearance Decisions

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 based on financial considerations. The applicant claimed he did not receive the Government's file, but the Board found he had acknowledged receipt. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEric C. Price — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed he never received the Government’s file of relevant material.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Moira Modzelewski
Gregg A. Cervi

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. 22-00058

)

) 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: June 1, 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 February 18, 2022, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On March 29, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Eric C. Price denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant represents that he never received the Government’s file of relevant material (FORM) and consequently had no opportunity to object to the Government’s evidence or to provide any response for the Judge’s consideration. However, Applicant signed a document acknowledging receipt of the FORM. The record establishes that the FORM was delivered to Applicant via his employer’s Facility Security Officer on August 25, 2022, that he was advised to

submit any response within 30 days of receipt, that he failed to submit any response, and that the record was forwarded to the Judge for decision on November 10, 2022. Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that he was denied an opportunity to respond to the FORM or otherwise denied the rights due him under the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01237 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 5, 2017). Applicant’s appeal brief makes no other assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also AG ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board