A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-01187
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 13, 2023 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial concerns. The applicant did not provide any materials to mitigate the allegations and appealed the decision without claiming harmful error. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, citing the lack of new evidence and failure to assert harmful error.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not submit any materials to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate the SOR allegations.
- The applicant did not assert harmful error on appeal, limiting the Board's review.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 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
- 2022-08-01
- Answer filed
- 2022-09-01 Applicant acknowledged receipt of FORM.
- Hearing held
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2023-02-13 Appeal affirmed the denial.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Rebuttal Evidence Under Guideline F
- Limitations on Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding Harmful Error
- Importance of Submitting Mitigating Evidence in Response to SOR Allegations
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 an Applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision and instead resubmitted documents that were already part of the record. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error.
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. 22-01187
)
) 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 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 August 1, 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 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On August 26, 2022, Department Counsel sent the Government’s file of relevant material (FORM) to Applicant. Having acknowledged receipt of the FORM on September 1, 2022, Applicant did not submit any materials to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate the SOR allegations. On January 3, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, she resubmits documents previously provided. To the extent that Applicant is alleging that she submitted documents that were not considered by the Judge, our review confirms that all documents submitted on appeal were in the record that was presented to the Judge. Additionally,
Applicant requests reconsideration of the Judge’s decision and provides updated information about her financial issues. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. 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 made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance 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