Loading case…

ISCR 23-01613: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2024) · CASE

ISCR Case 23-01613denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-01613

Oct 16, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial delinquencies. The Appeal Board affirmed this denial.

The Board noted that the applicant did not assert specific errors in the judge's decision. Instead, her appeal primarily expressed disagreement with the judge's conclusions regarding her financial situation.

The Appeal Board determined that mere disagreement with the judge's findings does not constitute harmful error, thus upholding the initial denial of the security clearance.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

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.”
E.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedDec 1, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateOct 16, 2024Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved the denial of a security clearance to the Applicant based on financial concerns. The Applicant did not assert any specific errors in the Administrative Judge's decision but provided additional information regarding her financial situation. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant's disagreement with the Judge's conclusions did not constitute a harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPamela C. Benson 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 found that the Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error, and therefore, the Administrative Judge's decision was sustainable.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski (Chair)
Allison Marie
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. 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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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