CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-02006 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-02006denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-02006

Sep 27, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from two primary issues.

First, the applicant had four delinquent debts totaling over $80,000, which raised concerns under Guideline F. Second, and critically, the applicant failed to disclose these significant financial obligations on his security clearance application, leading to a finding of a lack of candor under Guideline E.

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations, affirming the denial of security clearance. The applicant's subsequent appeal was denied because he did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision, which was based on the established facts of his undisclosed and delinquent debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 12, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 7, 2023after the record closed
Decision dateSep 27, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Undisclosed Financial Issues
Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Affirmation of Denial When No Harmful Error Is Asserted in Appeal

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 and personal conduct. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision and expressed remorse for financial irresponsibility. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as sustainable.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline 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 decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error committed by the Judge.

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. 22-02006

)

) 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: September 27, 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 December 12, 2022, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) 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 hearing. On July 7, 2023, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had four delinquent debts totaling over $80,000 and that he falsified his response to a question on his 2022 security clearance application by failing to disclose those delinquent debts. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the SOR allegations.

Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. Rather, it reflects actions that he has taken or will take to resolve the debts. It also states, “I’m totally sorry about being financial (sic) irresponsible and lying about my debt.” Appeal Brief at 1. 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 Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board