CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01308 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01308

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

Case Profile
Decision Date10/22/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-01308) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied due to concerns related to financial issues, specifically under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued on September 6, 2023, outlined the basis for the denial, citing the applicant's financial difficulties as a potential risk to national security.
During the proceedings, the applicant acknowledged the existence of financial problems but did not contest the allegations presented in the SOR. Instead, the applicant provided additional context regarding the circumstances that led to these financial issues and described ongoing efforts to resolve them. However, the administrative judge, Carol G. Ricciardello, ultimately ruled against the applicant, concluding that the financial concerns raised were significant enough to warrant denial of the security clearance.
On appeal, the applicant did not claim any errors made by the judge but sought to present further information about her situation. The Appeal Board, however, noted that it could not consider new evidence and could only review the case for harmful errors. Since the applicant did not allege any such errors, the Board affirmed the judge's decision to deny the security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 23-01308

Oct 22, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1, which addresses financial difficulties.

While Mitigating Condition F.2 was considered, it was ultimately not sufficient to overcome the security concerns. The applicant's appeal was affirmed, meaning the original denial was upheld.

The Appeal Board found the judge's initial decision to be sustainable, as the applicant did not present any new evidence or allege any harmful error in the original ruling. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Temporary and Have Been Resolved or Are Being ResolvedThe applicant provided additional information about her financial issues but did not demonstrate resolution.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 6, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 27, 2024
Decision dateOct 22, 2024

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Lack of New Evidence or Claims of Harmful Error in Appeals

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 an Applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations. The Applicant did not allege any errors by the Administrative Judge but provided additional context regarding her financial issues. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as there were no allegations of harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the decision was sustainable based on the existing record.

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
Gregg A. Cervi

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.