A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-00874
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 17, 2023 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to financial issues, including a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and significant unpaid taxes. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharged in 2021.
- The applicant owed over $21,000 in past due Federal income taxes for 2016-2018.
- The applicant failed to file his Federal income tax returns for 2019-2020 in a timely manner.
- The judge concluded that the applicant does not have a reliable financial record of filing and paying his Federal income taxes.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
- F3 Financial Considerationsraised
- F4 Financial Considerationsraised
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 issued
- 2022-06-14
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2022-12-19 Decision based on written record.
- Decision date
- 2023-02-17 Appeal 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
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.
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. 22-00874
)
) 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
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