CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00874 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-00874denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00874

Aug 11, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to 15 delinquent debts. These debts included both federal student loans and various consumer debts.

While the applicant partially admitted to the allegations, he failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating a consistent payment history to his creditors. This lack of evidence regarding financial responsibility was a primary factor in the denial.

On appeal, the denial was affirmed. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, and the existing evidence did not support overturning the initial decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedJun 14, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant did not request a hearing.
Hearing heldJun 9, 2022Written record considered.
Decision dateAug 11, 2022Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert that the Judge committed harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Judge's findings were supported by the record.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Moira D. Modzelewski

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. 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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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