CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01207 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-01207denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-01207

Aug 30, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F. While the applicant was found favorable under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the presence of seven delinquent debts raised significant concerns regarding financial responsibility.

Disqualifying conditions under Guideline F were identified, specifically AG ¶ 20, related to these outstanding debts. Although the applicant asserted improvements in resolving these financial obligations, the appeal did not demonstrate any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Mitigating conditions, including AG ¶ 21, AG ¶ 17, and AG ¶ 16, were considered but ultimately did not lead to a reversal.

The appeal was denied because the applicant failed to show that the judge made a harmful error, which is required to overturn a security clearance decision. The unresolved delinquent debts remained a primary factor in the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21notedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 17appliedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 16appliedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The impact that an unfavorable security clearance decision has on an applicant is not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility.”
— ISCR Case No. 22-01232 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Apr. 13, 2023)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 6, 2022
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJun 30, 2023
Decision dateAug 30, 2023Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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, noting that the impact of the decision on the Applicant's job was not a relevant consideration.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline BGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the appeal did not present grounds for overturning the denial of security clearance eligibility.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
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. 22-01207

)

) 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

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 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