A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-02301
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 29, 2024 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F for financial issues, while allegations under Guideline H were withdrawn and Guideline J was found in favor of the applicant. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, citing the lack of harmful 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 assert any harmful error in the appeal process.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- Decision Date
- 2024-02-29
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Withdrawal of Drug-related Allegations Under Guideline H
- Absence of Harmful Error in Appeal Process
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 based on financial considerations, criminal conduct, and drug involvement. 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. 22-02301
)
) 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 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), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) 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 December 26, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant is in his early-30s and recently married, with no children. He has worked in his trade for various contractors since 2009, with periods of unemployment between contracts. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged 15 delinquent debts and a failure to file a federal tax return for tax year 2018. At hearing, the Government withdrew the Guideline H allegations and all but one of the Guideline J allegations. The Judge found for Applicant on the remaining Guideline J allegation but against him on all Guideline F allegations.
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. 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