CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00147 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-00147denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-00147

Nov 13, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). While the judge found in the applicant's favor regarding allegations of falsifying applications, the denial was primarily based on his inability to manage his debts. The appeal affirmed this decision, as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge.

Specifically, the applicant admitted to having 11 delinquent student loans and an additional consumer debt. The judge determined that the applicant was unable to meet the payments of a proposed student loan plan.

Furthermore, the applicant did not take sufficient action to address his debts either before or after the hearing. These financial considerations, particularly the unresolved delinquent student loans and consumer debt, led to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 20, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 21, 2023after the record closed
Decision dateNov 13, 2023

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance (split findings)

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 Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the appeal.

Standard of review applied

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

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. 22-00147

)

) 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

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 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