CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01739 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01739denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 23-01739

Jun 25, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, appealed the denial of a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The Appeal Board, composed of three judges, affirmed the initial denial.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19. The primary reason for the Appeal Board's decision was the applicant's failure to assert harmful error in their appeal. Without an assertion of harmful error, the Board found no basis to overturn the original decision.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, with the Appeal Board upholding the initial determination due to the procedural deficiency in the applicant's appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

Decision DateJun 25, 2024

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene Lokey-Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided onan undetermined process

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge.

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
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. 23-01739

)

) 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

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 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