CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01232 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-01232denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-01232

Apr 13, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) for an applicant representing himself. The Appeal Board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's failure to assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision.

The Board noted that it could not consider new evidence presented during the appeal process. Furthermore, the applicant's argument that financial issues were not relevant to clearance eligibility was rejected.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1, with the Board upholding the judge's original determination due to the lack of asserted error and the inability to introduce new information at the appeal stage.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review a case de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 15, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 6, 2023Decision on written record
Decision dateApr 13, 2023Appeal decision

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Relevance of Financial Issues to Clearance Eligibility

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 appealed the decision but did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's claims did not meet the threshold for harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoss D. Hyams — 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 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 Administrative Judge, and the decision was sustainable based on the existing record.

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Moira Modzelewski
Gregg A. Cervi

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. 22-01232

)

) 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: April 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 July 15, 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. On February 6, 2023, after consideration of the record, Administrative Judge Ross D. Hyams 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, he requests reversal of the Judge’s decision and provides additional evidence about his debts. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. Applicant also asserts that losing of his security clearance will adversely impact his finances and

his family. Those factors, however, are not relevant considerations in evaluating clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10758 at 2 (App. Bd. May 21, 2013). The Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge 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: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board