CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case WHS-C Case No. 23-00032-R — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date5/10/2023
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case WHS-C Case No. 23-00032-R) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · For Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · For Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case WHS-C Case No. 23-00032-Rdenied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. WHS-C Case No. 23-00032-R

May 10, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance primarily due to unmitigated financial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). While initial allegations under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) were resolved favorably, the applicant's financial issues presented significant security risks that were not adequately addressed.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The applicant did not claim harmful error in the judge's initial decision but sought reconsideration by providing additional financial context and letters of support from colleagues. However, these efforts did not sufficiently mitigate the disqualifying financial conditions raised under Guideline F.

Ultimately, the applicant's security clearance was denied because the financial issues, which were the primary concern, remained unmitigated, despite the favorable resolution of other allegations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20appliedAlcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 21appliedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 19, 2022
Answer filed—undated document
Hearing heldMar 16, 2023
Decision dateMay 10, 2023Appeal decision affirmed

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Importance of Asserting Harmful Error for Successful Appeals

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 based on financial considerations, alcohol consumption, and criminal conduct. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and sought reconsideration based on additional context and support from colleagues. The Board affirmed the denial as no harmful error was alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline GGuideline J

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 under the circumstances.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Moira Modzelewski
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: )

)

----- )

WHS-C Case No. 23-00032-R

)

) 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: May 10, 2023

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se On April 19, 2022, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a statement of reasons (SOR) pursuant to DoD Manual 5200.02 (Apr. 3, 2017, as amended) (DoDM 5200.02) advising Applicant that her conduct raised security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. Applicant answered the SOR in an undated document. On October 6, 2022, DoD Consolidated Adjudication Services (CAS) revoked Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information, and she appealed that revocation under the provisions of DoDM 5200.02. On December 2, 2022, Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence & Security) Ronald Moultrie issued a memorandum requiring that DoD civilian or military personnel whose clearance eligibility was revoked or denied between September 30, 2022, and the date of that memorandum be provided the opportunity to pursue the hearing and appeal process set forth in DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).

As a result of Secretary Moultrie’s memo, Applicant was given the opportunity to receive the process set forth in the Directive, and she elected that process. On March 16, 2023, after close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman found favorably for Applicant on the Guideline G and Guideline J allegations, found adversely on all but one of the Guideline F allegations, and denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant make no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, she requests reconsideration of the Judge’s decision, provides additional context about the circumstances surrounding her financial issues, and emphasizes the support of senior colleagues. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board