CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01180 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-01180denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-01180

Mar 6, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The applicant had approximately $78,800 in delinquent debt and failed to file tax returns for 2016 and 2017. These issues raised disqualifying conditions F1 through F6.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert any errors made by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, the board could not consider any new evidence presented during the appeal process.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied based on the applicant's substantial delinquent debt and unfiled tax returns, with no procedural errors identified by the applicant on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations
F2raisedFinancial Considerations
F3raisedFinancial Considerations
F4raisedFinancial Considerations
F5raisedFinancial Considerations
F6raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 21, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateMar 6, 2023Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
Sustainability of Judge's Decision When No Harmful Error Is Alleged

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 a security clearance based on financial concerns under Guideline F. The Applicant did not assert any errors by the Administrative Judge and instead reiterated previous explanations and submitted new evidence. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was sustainable as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error.

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. 22-01180

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: March 6, 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 September 21, 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 Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) provided Applicant a copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on November 2, 2022, and Applicant responded to the FORM in a timely manner. On January 13, 2023, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged twelve financial concerns, including that Applicant carried delinquent debt totaling about $78,800 and that he had failed to timely file both his Federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2016 and 2017. The Judge found against Applicant on all allegations. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he resubmits documents previously provided and reiterates much of the same explanation he submitted in response to the FORM – that some of the debts are the result of identity theft, that some of the debts are resolved, and that his tax returns have been filed, albeit late. Additionally,

he requests reconsideration of the Judge’s decision and submits new evidence. 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 matters in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not alleged any such harmful error, and therefore the Judge’s decision 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