CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-01790 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-01790denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 22-01790

Feb 29, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial concerns. The applicant had 10 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $83,000, which constituted a disqualifying condition under F.1.

The applicant appealed the denial, but the appeal board found no harmful errors by the judge and no new evidence was presented. Consequently, the appeal board affirmed the initial decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Procedural Posture

Decision DateFeb 29, 2024

Cite For

Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Impact of Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance
Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of New Evidence in Appeal

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 for the Applicant based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision and submitted new evidence, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

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 Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the decision was sustainable based on the evidence presented.

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
James B. Norman

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. 22-01790

)

) 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: February 29, 2024

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 September 29, 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 (AG) 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 November 30, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant is in his mid-40s. He served on active duty in the U.S. military from 1995 until he retired with an honorable discharge in 2021 and has a 100% disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Married in 2001, Applicant divorced in 2016 and has five children between the ages of 9 and 23. The SOR alleges 10 delinquent debts totaling about $83,000. The Judge found for Applicant on two of the debts and adversely to Applicant on the remaining eight. Applicant attributes his indebtedness to his separation and contentious divorce.

On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, he submits new evidence and requests reconsideration of the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. Applicant also highlights that he requires a security clearance to retain his job. The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020). 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: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board