A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-01859
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 29, 2024 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Administrative Judge ruled in favor of the applicant regarding Guideline E but issued mixed findings under Guideline F. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had mixed findings under Guideline F, which raised concerns about financial considerations.
- The applicant did not assert harmful error on appeal, limiting the Board's review to the existing record.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 21 Financial Considerationsrejected
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2022-12-09
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2024-05-29
- Decision date
- 2024-07-29
Cite for
- Mixed Findings Under Guideline F Regarding Financial Considerations
- Limitations on Appeal When No Harmful Error Is Asserted
- The Inability to Consider New Evidence on 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 was filed by the Applicant after the Department of Defense denied his security clearance based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Administrative Judge found in favor of the Applicant on Guideline E but issued mixed findings on Guideline F. The Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in 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. 22-01859
)
) 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: July 29, 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 December 9, 2022, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) 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 May 29, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge found in Applicant’s favor as to all allegations under Guideline E and entered mixed findings under Guideline F. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, he readdresses each of his debts and provides evidence of payment of two delinquent debts and a tax lien, all of which occurred after the close of the record. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. E.g., ISCR Case No. 15-02156 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 24, 2016). Nor does the Appeal Board review cases de novo. 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 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: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board