A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-02006
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 27, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to four delinquent debts exceeding $80,000 and failure to disclose these debts on his application. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision, which was based on the applicant's lack of candor regarding his financial obligations.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had four delinquent debts totaling over $80,000.
- The applicant failed to disclose these debts on his security clearance application.
- The judge found against the applicant on all allegations, affirming the denial of security clearance.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2022-12-12
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2023-07-07 after the record closed
- Decision date
- 2023-09-27
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
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.
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. 22-02006
)
) 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
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