A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-02337
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 29, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to financial issues, including four delinquent debts totaling approximately $28,600 and failures to file tax returns for multiple years. The Administrative Judge found some allegations mitigated but ruled against the applicant on others, leading to an affirmed appeal as the applicant did not assert harmful error.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had four delinquent debts totaling approximately $28,600.
- The applicant failed to file Federal income tax returns for multiple years, specifically for tax years 2015 through 2020.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20(a) Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 20(c) Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(d) Financial Considerationsapplied
- AG ¶ 20(e) Financial Considerationsapplied
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
- 2022-04-21
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- Decision date
- 2023-11-29 Appeal 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
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.
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
_______________________________________________ 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 ) _______________________________________)
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