A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
WHS-C Case No. 23-00032-R
Appeal BoardDecided May 10, 2023 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security clearance denial primarily under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), while allegations under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) were resolved favorably. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision and sought reconsideration based on additional financial context and support from colleagues.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's financial issues raised significant security concerns under Guideline F, which were not sufficiently mitigated.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20 Alcohol Consumptionapplied
- AG ¶ 21 Criminal Conductapplied
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 issued
- 2022-04-19
- Answer filed
- undated document
- Hearing held
- 2023-03-16
- Decision date
- 2023-05-10 Appeal 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
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 instead. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as the Applicant did not allege 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: )
)
)
----- )
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
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