A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-01180
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 6, 2023 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial issues, including approximately $78,800 in delinquent debt and failure to file tax returns for 2016 and 2017. The appeal board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, noting the applicant did not assert any errors by the judge and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had significant delinquent debt totaling approximately $78,800.
- The applicant failed to file tax returns for the years 2016 and 2017.
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
- F2 Financial Considerationsraised
- F3 Financial Considerationsraised
- F4 Financial Considerationsraised
- F5 Financial Considerationsraised
- F6 Financial Considerationsraised
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 issued
- 2022-09-21
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2023-03-06 Appeal 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
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.
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. 22-01180
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: March 6, 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 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