CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00874 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-00874denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-00874

Feb 17, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial issues. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision.

Key disqualifying conditions included a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharged in 2021. Additionally, the applicant owed over $21,000 in past due Federal income taxes for the years 2016-2018 and failed to timely file Federal income tax returns for 2019-2020.

The judge concluded that the applicant lacked a reliable financial record of filing and paying Federal income taxes, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations
F3raisedFinancial Considerations
F4raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 14, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 19, 2022Decision based on written record.
Decision dateFeb 17, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Importance of Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative 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 onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
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.

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Moira Modzelewski
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. 22-00874

)

) 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: February 17, 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 June 14, 2022, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On December 19, 2022, after considering the written record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR contains nine allegations. With minor modifications, the Judge found against Applicant on five of those allegations, i.e., that Applicant had a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharged in 2021; that he owed over $21,000 in past due Federal income taxes for 2016-2018; and that he failed to file his Federal income tax returns for 2019-2020 in a timely manner. In general, the

Judge concluded that Applicant does not have a reliable financial record of filing and paying his Federal income taxes. Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. 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. 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: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board