A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-00558
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 7, 2024 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal board affirmed the initial denial, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge in the appeal.
- The appeal board found no basis to overturn the initial denial.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- Decision Date
- 2024-03-07
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Importance of Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals
- Pro Se Representation in Security Clearance Cases
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 an Applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision and instead 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. 23-00558
)
) 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: March 7, 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 March 23, 2023, 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 January 11, 2024, 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. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, she 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 she requires a security clearance to retain her 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