CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01859 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-01859denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-01859

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

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Administrative Judge initially ruled in the applicant's favor regarding Guideline E but issued mixed findings under Guideline F, specifically citing Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20.

While Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 21 was applied, the mixed findings under Guideline F ultimately raised unresolved concerns about the applicant's financial responsibility. The applicant appealed the decision; however, he did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge.

Consequently, the Board's review was limited to the existing record, which affirmed the Judge's findings. The security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant provided evidence of payment of debts after the record closed, which could not be considered on appeal.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 9, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 29, 2024
Decision dateJul 29, 2024

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance eligibility based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and provided new evidence that was not considered. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCharles C. Hale — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline 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 decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the decision was sustainable based on the findings made.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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. 22-01859

)

) 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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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