CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00185 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00185denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 23-00185

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

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, primarily due to a long history of delinquent Federal student loans. Representing himself, the applicant admitted to the allegations concerning four outstanding student loans.

The judge noted that the applicant's last payments on these loans were made in mid-2014, meaning he was delinquent for six years prior to the COVID-19 payment pause. Despite engaging a debt consolidation service for other financial obligations, the applicant failed to address his student loan debts.

Given this pattern of financial delinquency and the applicant's failure to assert any harmful errors against the initial decision, the appeal was denied, and the security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.32

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 14, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 25, 2023
Decision dateDec 18, 2023Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Delinquency Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Importance of Asserting Harmful Errors in 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 eligibility based on financial considerations. The Applicant admitted to having delinquent student loans but did not assert any harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's appeal did not raise any specific harmful errors.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas — 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 decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — 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. 23-00185

)

) 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: December 18, 2023

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 14, 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 based on the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and his response to the FORM. On September 25, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had four delinquent Federal student loans. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted each allegation. The Judge found against Applicant on all the debts. In summarizing the decision, the Judge stated that Applicant’s last student loan payments were in mid-2014. By the time a COVID-19 related pause in payments began in 2020, he had already been delinquent for six years. Despite use of a debt consolidation service to address unrelated delinquent accounts, Applicant failed to address his student loan debts, which accrued

after his wages were garnished for credit card debt. The alleged student loan debts are not mitigated. Decision at 5. Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. Rather, it reargues the case that was raised in the FORM and discusses new evidence. Appeal Brief at 1. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. 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: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski 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