A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-01174
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 17, 2024 · Administrative Judge James B. Norman · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The Administrative Judge found favorably on three of the fourteen allegations but ultimately upheld the denial, which was affirmed by the Appeal Board as the applicant did not allege any error in the original decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had unresolved financial issues that raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The applicant did not allege any error by the Judge in the appeal process.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
- F.2 Delinquent accountsraised
- F.3 Failure to file or pay taxesraised
Mitigating
- F.4 The conditions that resulted in the financial difficulties were largely beyond the person's controlrejected
- F.5 The person has received or is receiving counseling for the financial problemsrejected
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2022-09-26
- Answer filed
- Applicant represented themselves.
- Hearing held
- 2024-10-25
- Decision date
- 2024-12-17 Appeal affirmed the denial.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Importance of Alleging 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 an Applicant seeking security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The Administrative Judge found in favor of the Applicant on three of the fourteen allegations but ultimately denied the clearance. The Applicant appealed without alleging any specific harmful error, leading the Board to affirm the Judge's decision.
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. 22-01174
)
) 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 17, 2024
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 26, 2022, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On October 25, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas denied Applicant security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on three of the 14 SOR allegations. On appeal, Applicant makes no allegation that the Judge erred but instead seeks reconsideration. 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 in ISCR Case No. 22-01174 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board