A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-01207
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 30, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F, while he was found favorable under Guidelines B and E concerning foreign influence and personal conduct. Despite asserting improvements in resolving debts, the appeal was denied as the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had seven delinquent debts, which were a significant concern under Guideline F.
- The appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge, which is necessary for overturning a decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 21 Financial Considerationsnoted
- AG ¶ 17 Foreign Influenceapplied
- AG ¶ 16 Personal Conductapplied
Key rule quoted
“The impact that an unfavorable security clearance decision has on an applicant is not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2022-09-06
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2023-06-30
- Decision date
- 2023-08-30 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Affirmation of Favorable Findings Under Guidelines B and E Despite Financial Concerns
- Limitations of Appeal Process Regarding New Evidence and Harmful Error Assertions
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 eligibility based on financial considerations, foreign influence, and personal conduct. The Applicant did not assert any harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's appeal did not meet the threshold for harmful error review.
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. 22-01207
)
) 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: August 30, 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 6, 2022, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline B (Foreign Influence), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective Jun. 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On June 30, 2023, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had seven delinquent debts, that his spouse was a dual citizen of the United States and a foreign country and owned property in that country, that he had in-laws who were citizens and residents of that foreign country, and that he received written reprimands from an employer in 2017 and twice in 2019. The Judge found against Applicant on the Guideline F allegations and in favor of him on the Guideline B and E allegations.
Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. Rather, it asserts that Applicant has made strides to resolve his delinquent debts, and notes that he needs a security clearance to do his job. On this last point, the impact that an unfavorable security clearance decision has on an applicant is not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 22-01232 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Apr. 13, 2023). His appeal brief also contains new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. 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: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board