A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-01790
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 29, 2024 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial issues under Guideline F, specifically citing 10 delinquent debts totaling approximately $83,000. The appeal did not present any harmful errors by the judge or new evidence, leading the appeal board to affirm the denial of the security clearance.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had 10 delinquent debts totaling approximately $83,000, raising significant financial concerns.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Procedural posture
- Decision Date
- 2024-02-29
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
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.
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. 22-01790
)
) 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
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