CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00612 — CASE

ISCR Case 23-00612denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-00612

Jan 22, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing themselves, was denied a clearance primarily under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's admitted financial misconduct and felony theft.

Specific disqualifying conditions cited included AG ¶ 20, AG ¶ 19, and AG ¶ 17. The applicant's appeal did not assert that the judge made a harmful error in the initial decision.

Ultimately, the denial was upheld, and the appeal was rejected. The decision to deny the security clearance was sustained based on national security interests, reinforcing the initial determination that the applicant did not meet the necessary standards.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 17raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

Decision dateJan 22, 2024

Cite For

Security Clearance Denial Due to Admitted Financial Misconduct
Affirmation of Denial Based on National Security Interests
Lack of Harmful Error Assertion 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 a security clearance based on allegations under Guideline F, J, and E. The Applicant admitted to the allegations but did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no basis for overturning the decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEric C. Price — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline JGuideline E

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 of the Administrative Judge as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the record supported the denial of the security clearance based on the Applicant's admitted conduct.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
James B. Norman
Allison Marie

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. 23-00612

)

) 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: January 22, 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 May 2, 2023, 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 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). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On December 1, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Eric C. Price denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleges that Applicant fraudulently withdrew about $9,700 from the bank account of a youth activities club between 2017 and 2019 and that she gambled in an effort to pay back the funds. Under Guideline J, this conduct was cross-alleged, and the SOR also alleged that Applicant was charged in about 2021 with two counts of Felony Theft and ordered

by a court to pay restitution in the amount of $20,000. All Guideline F and Guideline J allegations were cross-alleged under Guideline E. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations but stated that the restitution was by agreement rather than court-ordered. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, she reiterates remorse for her actions and highlights that she was “open, honest and cooperative through this whole process.” Appeal Brief (AB) at 1. Applicants are required to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to relevant questions needed to reach a clearance decision. Applicant’s honesty during the adjudication process does not negate or diminish the negative security implications of her history. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-0119 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 1999) (“An applicant’s honesty and candor with the government do not preclude the government from considering the security significance of the applicant’s admitted conduct.”). Applicant also notes that she does not have access to classified information in her job and that “[t]here is no risk of me being a threat to National Security.” AB at 1. The issue of access, however, is not a relevant matter for our consideration. Our jurisdiction is limited to those issues set forth in the Directive, and we have no authority to consider the extent to which an applicant may or may not actually have access to classified information in the course of her job. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00508 at 2–3 (App. Bd. Jan. 23, 2015) (citing Directive ¶ E3.1.32). The Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to those in which the appealing party has alleged that the judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b).

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board