CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01613 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01613

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

Case Profile
Decision Date10/16/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-01613) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Concerns) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued on December 1, 2023, outlined the financial issues that raised security concerns, prompting the applicant to request a decision based on the written record without a hearing.
In the proceedings, the applicant submitted six documentary exhibits in response to the Government's File of Relevant Material (FORM). While the applicant acknowledged the existence of financial delinquencies, she did not provide specific assertions of error regarding the administrative judge's decision. Instead, she presented additional information about her efforts to resolve these delinquencies, essentially seeking reconsideration of the ruling.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's security clearance eligibility, and this decision was affirmed by the Appeal Board. The Board noted that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge, and her disagreement with the judge's evaluation of the evidence did not constitute grounds for overturning the decision. Consequently, the ruling was sustained, affirming the denial of 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. 23-01613

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 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.

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 by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error, and therefore, the Judge's decision was sustainable.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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.