CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01187 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-01187denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-01187

Feb 13, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved financial concerns. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) raised a disqualifying condition under AG ¶ 20.

The applicant did not submit any materials to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate the allegations outlined in the SOR. Consequently, the Adjudicator found that the applicant had not resolved the financial issues.

The applicant appealed the denial but did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision, which limited the Appeal Board's review. Given the lack of new evidence or claims of harmful error, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedAug 1, 2022
Answer filedSep 1, 2022Applicant acknowledged receipt of FORM.
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 13, 2023Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an Applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Administrative Judge and instead resubmitted previously provided documents. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGina L. Marine — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the decision denying the security clearance was sustainable based on the record.

Standard of review applied

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

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. 22-01187

)

) 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

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 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