A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-00185
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 18, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to four delinquent Federal student loans. Despite admitting to the allegations, the judge noted a long history of financial delinquency, leading to the denial of the appeal as no harmful errors were asserted against the initial decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had a long history of delinquency regarding his student loans.
- The applicant's last payments were made in mid-2014, and he was already delinquent for six years before the COVID-19 payment pause.
- The applicant failed to address his student loan debts despite using a debt consolidation service for other debts.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2023-02-14
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2023-09-25
- Decision date
- 2023-12-18 Decision 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
The appeal involved an Applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The Applicant admitted to having delinquent Federal student loans and did not assert any harmful errors in the Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance eligibility.
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. 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
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