A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-00874
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 11, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to 15 delinquent debts, including federal student loans and consumer debts. The applicant partially admitted to the allegations but failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial responsibility, leading to the affirmation of the denial on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had 15 delinquent debts, including federal student loans and consumer debts.
- The applicant did not provide sufficient documentary evidence showing a track record of consistent payments to creditors.
- The appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-06-14
- Answer filed
- Applicant did not request a hearing.
- Hearing held
- 2022-06-09 Written record considered.
- Decision date
- 2022-08-11 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Multiple Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
- Affirmation of Denial on Appeal When No Harmful Error Is Alleged
- Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal Process
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 involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not request a hearing and was denied by the Administrative Judge. On appeal, the Applicant did not assert any harmful error, leading the Board to affirm the denial.
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. 21-00874
)
) 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 11, 2022
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 14, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). In responding to the SOR, Applicant did not request a hearing. On June 9, 2022, after considering the written record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 15 delinquent debts. These consist of 12 Federal student loans placed for collection, two delinquent consumer debts, and a charged-off private educational loan. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted or denied each of the allegations and also provided a personal letter addressing the debts and a credit report. He did not submit a response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on one consumer debt and against him on the remaining allegations, noting “[h]e did
not provide documentary evidence showing a track record of consistent payments to several SOR creditors.” Decision at 9. Applicant’s brief makes no assertion that the Judge committed harmful error. Rather, it contains documents and assertions that were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant further notes that the adverse decision will have a negative impact on him and his family, but a decision’s impact is not a relevant consideration in assessing an individual’s security clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-02397 at 1-2 (App. Bd. May 6, 2020). The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal 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 alleged any harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility is sustainable.
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira D. Modzelewski Moira D. Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board