A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-00058
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 1, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial concerns. The appeal was based on the claim of not receiving the Government's file, but evidence showed he acknowledged receipt and failed to respond. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, emphasizing national security considerations.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not demonstrate he was denied the opportunity to respond to the Government's evidence.
- The applicant acknowledged receipt of the FORM and failed to submit a response within the allotted time.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2022-02-18
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- Decision date
- 2023-06-01 Appeal 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
The appeal concerned the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued he did not receive the Government's file, but the Board found he had acknowledged receipt and failed to respond. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as sustainable on the record.
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. 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
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