A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-01613
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 16, 2024 · Administrative Judge James B. Norman · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Concerns) but was denied due to unresolved financial delinquencies. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert specific errors in the judge's decision and that mere disagreement with the conclusions does not constitute harmful error.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert specific errors by the judge in the appeal.
- The Appeal Board found that the applicant's disagreement with the judge's conclusions does not constitute harmful error.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“An applicant’s disagreement with the judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2023-12-01
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- Decision based on written record.
- Decision date
- 2024-10-16 Appeal decision.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Importance of Asserting Specific Errors in Appeals
- Disagreement with Evidence Interpretation Does Not Constitute Harmful Error
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 was in response to a denial of security clearance based on financial concerns. The Applicant did not assert any specific errors in the Judge's decision but provided additional information regarding her financial situation. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as there were no allegations of harmful error.
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. 23-01613
) 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: October 16, 2024
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 1, 2023, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Concerns) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines 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 based on the written record, without a hearing. The Government submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM) containing the entire record and the Government’s argument. Applicant provided six documentary exhibits in response to the FORM. On August 22, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Pamela C. Benson denied Applicant security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant makes no specific assertion of error on the part of the Judge. Instead, she provides additional information about the status of her delinquencies and her efforts to resolve them. In essence, she 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 an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is sustainable.
Applicant is advocating for an alternative weighing of the evidence. However, an applicant’s disagreement with the judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. E.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007).
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-01613 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board