A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-02046
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 18, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to two delinquent debts totaling approximately $24,000. Despite admitting to the debts, the applicant provided no mitigating evidence, leading to the affirmation of the denial on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to the allegations of delinquent debts without providing mitigating evidence.
- The appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge, which is necessary for overturning the decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2023-01-12
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2023-06-15 Decision made based on written record.
- Decision date
- 2023-07-18 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Importance of Providing Mitigating Evidence in Financial Cases
- 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 concerned the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant admitted to having delinquent debts but did not provide mitigating evidence. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error.
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. 22-02046
)
) 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: July 18, 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 January 12, 2023, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) 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 15, 2023, after considering the written record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had two delinquent debts totaling about $24,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted the SOR allegations and provided no explanation or documentation regarding those debts. He did not provide a response to the Government’s File of
Relevant Material. The Judge found against Applicant on both allegations, noting the paucity of mitigating evidence. Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error but rather notes that his pay was garnished in 2021 for an unalleged debt that he claims was fraudulent. His brief also contains new evidence, a document concerning that garnishment, 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 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