CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-02046 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-02046denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-02046

Jul 18, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a U.S. security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to two delinquent debts totaling approximately $24,000. The applicant admitted to these debts but failed to provide any mitigating evidence to address the financial concerns.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20, which addresses a history of not meeting financial obligations. The applicant's admission to the allegations without presenting any evidence to mitigate the concerns was a primary factor in the decision.

On appeal, the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, which is a necessary condition for overturning an initial denial. Consequently, the security clearance was denied, and the decision was affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 12, 2023
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJun 15, 2023Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateJul 18, 2023Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an Applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision and provided new evidence that could not be considered. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

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 evidence presented did not warrant a different outcome.

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. 22-02046

)

) 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

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 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