A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-00147
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 13, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to delinquent student loans and falsification of applications. Although the judge found in favor of the applicant regarding the falsification allegations, the applicant was denied clearance primarily due to his inability to manage his debts. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to having 11 delinquent student loans and a consumer debt.
- The judge found the applicant unable to pay a proposed student loan payment plan.
- The applicant did not take sufficient action to address his debts before or after the hearing.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2022-07-20
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2023-09-21 after the record closed
- Decision date
- 2023-11-13
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
- Falsification Allegations Found in Favor of the Applicant but Not Dispositive
- 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 based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Applicant admitted to the allegations but did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Appeal 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. 22-00147
)
) 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: November 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 July 20, 2022, 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 September 21, 2023, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 11 delinquent student loans and a consumer debt, and falsified two security clearance applications. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted each allegation. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the falsification allegations and against him on all of the debts. In summarizing the decision, the Judge stated that Applicant was unable to pay
a proposed student loan payment plan and assumed the accounts were closed. He became aware of his debts during his security investigation and made one payment before and one after his hearing. He did not take any other action to address his debts and believed that his security clearance hearing process would provide him guidance on how to resolve his financial difficulties. Decision at 6. Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. Rather, it states that he was unaware of the importance of addressing his student loans, has grown and learned throughout the process, and began monthly payments the day after his hearing. Appeal Brief at 1. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal and 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 ¶¶ E3.1.29 and 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: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board