A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-00737
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 6, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced financial concerns under Guideline F due to 12 delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $37,000. The Administrative Judge found against her on six delinquencies, and her appeal was denied as she did not demonstrate harmful error by the Judge, nor was new evidence considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not demonstrate harmful error by the Judge.
- The appeal board does not review cases de novo and cannot consider new evidence.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
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 issued
- 2021-06-18
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2022-12-13 record closed
- Decision date
- 2023-02-06 appeal 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
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.
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. 21-00737
)
) 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
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