CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 21-02337 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 21-02337denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 21-02337

Nov 29, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant unmitigated financial issues. The applicant, representing himself, faced allegations concerning four delinquent debts totaling approximately $28,600 and a failure to file federal income tax returns for multiple years, specifically from 2015 through 2020.

While the Administrative Judge found some allegations mitigated, others were not, leading to the denial. Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c) were raised, and mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(d) and AG ¶ 20(e) were applied.

Ultimately, the applicant's appeal was affirmed, as he did not assert harmful error in the initial decision. The denial was based on the unresolved delinquent debts and the consistent failure to file tax returns over a six-year period.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(c)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge found that the applicant mitigated concerns regarding failure to file Federal returns for tax years 2017 and 2018.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge found that the applicant mitigated concerns regarding failure to file state returns for tax years 2015 through 2018.

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 issuedApr 21, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateNov 29, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Mitigation of Financial Concerns Based on Timely Filing of Tax Returns
Limitations of Appeal Process Regarding Harmful Error Assertions

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 did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and sought reconsideration based on additional information regarding his financial issues. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia — 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 made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

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

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
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

_______________________________________________ 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: November 29, 2023 ) In the matter of: )

)

----- )

ISCR Case No. 21-02337

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On April 21, 2022, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) (AG) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On September 26, 2023, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Candace Le’i Garcia denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged four delinquent debts that totaled approximately $28,600 and three security concerns regarding income taxes: a failure to timely file Federal income tax returns for tax years (TYs) 2012 through 2014, a failure to file Federal income tax returns for TYs 2015 through 2018, and a failure to file state income tax returns for TYs 2015 through 2020. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on the allegation that he failed to timely file his Federal returns for 2012 through 2014. Additionally, she found that Applicant had mitigated the security concerns regarding his failure to file Federal returns for TYs 2017 and 2018 and his failure to file state

returns for TYs 2015 through 2018. She found adversely to Applicant on the allegations that he failed to file state and Federal returns for the remaining tax years and found adversely on the four delinquent debts. On appeal, Applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, he requests reconsideration of the Judge’s decision and provides additional information about his efforts to resolve the circumstances that led to his financial issues. 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: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board