CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00737 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-00737denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00737

Feb 6, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

The applicant's security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 12 delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $37,000. The Administrative Judge found against the applicant on six of these delinquencies, citing Disqualifying Condition F1.

Representing herself, the applicant appealed the decision. However, the appeal was denied because she did not demonstrate that the Administrative Judge made a harmful error in the initial ruling.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting that it does not review cases de novo and therefore could not consider any new evidence presented by the applicant during the appeal process.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The 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 18, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 13, 2022record closed
Decision dateFeb 6, 2023appeal affirmed

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
Definition of Harmful Error in Security Clearance Cases

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 a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in finding she had not received financial counseling. The Board found this error to be harmless and affirmed the denial of the security clearance, as no other harmful errors were alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
The Judge erred in finding that she had not received financial counseling.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's error regarding financial counseling was harmless and did not affect the outcome of the case. The Applicant did not allege any other harmful errors, and the Board affirmed the decision of the Judge.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Moira Modzelewski
Gregg A. Cervi

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. 21-00737

)

) 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: February 6, 2023

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 18, 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 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On December 13, 2022, after the record closed, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher 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 12 delinquent consumer debts. The Judge found against Applicant on six delinquencies totaling about $37,000. On appeal, Applicant notes that the Judge erred in finding that she had not received financial counseling, as she had consulted with a commercial debt relief company. Any error in this regard was harmless, as it did not likely have an impact on the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01220 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 1, 2020).

Applicant makes no other assertion of error on the part of the Judge. Instead, she provides additional information about the circumstances that led to her financial issues and submits new evidence. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. 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 a security clearance is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board