CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00579 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-00579denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-00579

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

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple unresolved financial issues. The Administrative Judge's decision to deny the clearance was based on the applicant's admission to most allegations, which included eight delinquent student loans and one consumer debt.

The Judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to financial considerations, specifically citing Disqualifying Condition F.1. The applicant did not present evidence of mitigation sufficient to overcome the security concerns raised by these debts.

Ultimately, the Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, concluding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the initial ruling. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

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 13, 2022
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJan 11, 2023Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateMar 6, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Applicant's Admission of Financial Delinquency as a Basis for Denial

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, representing herself, did not assert any harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the applicant did not allege any harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error committed by the Judge, and the appeal was limited to the errors raised by the applicant.

Standard of review applied

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

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. 22-00579

)

) 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: March 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 April 13, 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 DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On January 11, 2023, after considering the written record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 eight delinquent student loans and one consumer debt. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted all but one of the allegations. The Judge found against Applicant on all allegations.

Applicant’s appeal brief contains new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Her brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. 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 alleged such a 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: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board