ISCR Case No. 22-00243

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

)

------------ )

ISCR Case No. 22-00243

)

) 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: August 27, 2025

FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 2, 2025, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) 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). On January 29, 2025, Department Counsel moved to amend the SOR to include two additional allegations under Guideline E, and to add one new concern under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). On June 26, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Gatha LaFaye denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged six concerns under Guideline B, including that Applicant’s mother (SOR ¶ 1.a), three sisters (SOR ¶ 1.b), three brothers (SOR ¶ 1.c), and six friends (SOR ¶ 1.d) are citizens and residents of Djibouti; from 2017 to 2023, that he provided his mother with over $112,000 in financial support (SOR ¶ 1.e); and that along with his brother, he co-owns an auto parts store located in Djibouti (SOR ¶ 1.f). Under Guideline E, the SOR alleged that Applicant falsified his

March 2021 and August 2023 security clearance applications when he failed to disclose the financial support he provides to his mother (SOR ¶¶ 2.a-2.b); that, from October 2020 to February 2021, Applicant collected unemployment in a U.S. state even though he was living abroad in Djibouti at the time and not eligible for unemployment (SOR ¶ 2.c); and that he demonstrated unexplained affluence (SOR ¶ 2.d) as cross-alleged under Guideline F (SOR ¶ 3.a), which alleged that Applicant’s total combined gross income for the years 2014 to 2023, was approximately $190,000, yet during that time frame he sent (directly or indirectly) at least approximately $95,000 to family members and/or friends in Djibouti, invested $70,000 in a business in Djibouti, and purchased and paid off at least four vehicles, one of which cost approximately $34,000. In responding to the SOR and the amended SOR allegations, Applicant admitted the allegations under Guideline B, but denied the allegations under Guideline E and Guideline F. The Judge found adversely on SOR ¶¶ 1.b through 1.f,1 2.d, and 3.a. There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity. Directive ¶ E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of error on the part of the Judge but rather submits new evidence and requests reconsideration of the adverse decision. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Our authority to review a case is limited to matters in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error. Applicant has alleged no such error, and the Judge’s decision is sustainable. 1 The Judge found that SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.e were duplicate allegations, and thus SOR ¶ 1.a was decided in Applicant’s favor.

The decision in ISCR Case No. 22-00243 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board