A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-01739
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 25, 2024 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, sought to appeal a denial of security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Appeal Board affirmed the denial due to the applicant's failure to assert harmful error in the original decision. The ruling was signed by three judges, confirming the initial denial.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal, leading to the affirmation of the denial.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- Decision Date
- 2024-06-25
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error in Appeal
- Importance of Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals
- Guidance on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
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 eligibility based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's appeal did not meet the threshold for review.
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. 23-01739
)
) 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: June 25, 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 September 19, 2023, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) 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). On May 7, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey-Anderson denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, he requests reconsideration of the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. 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 such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility is sustainable.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-01739 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board