CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-02301 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date2/29/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-02301) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Withdrawn
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · For Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 22-02301denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-02301

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

Summary

The applicant, representing themselves, was denied a security clearance primarily due to unresolved financial issues under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). While initial concerns were raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the allegations related to drug involvement were withdrawn, and the criminal conduct concerns were resolved in the applicant's favor.

The denial was based on the applicant's outstanding financial obligations, which were deemed to raise security concerns. The applicant did not present any arguments of harmful error during the appeal process.

Ultimately, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial, concluding that there was no harmful error in the original decision to deny the security clearance based on the financial considerations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

Decision DateFeb 29, 2024

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline JGuideline H

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 Board is limited to reviewing only those claims of error.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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. 22-02301

)

) 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

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 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-30sand 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