CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01317 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-01317denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-01317

Apr 5, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial issues. These included a bankruptcy and multiple delinquent debts. The applicant admitted to most of the financial allegations but disputed one specific consumer debt.

The denial was based on several disqualifying conditions under Guideline F, specifically F.1, F.2, and F.3. The applicant's appeal was ultimately denied because he did not demonstrate any harmful error in the initial decision-making process. Furthermore, his failure to respond to the Government's File of Relevant Material limited his opportunity to present additional evidence or arguments.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Debts
F.1raisedFinancial 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 issuedOct 7, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateApr 5, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Applicant's Failure to Demonstrate Harmful Error in the Initial Decision Process
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Authority Regarding Review of 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 security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no merit in the Applicant's claims of misunderstanding the process or due process violations.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — 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 did not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error.

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 Applicant did not allege any harmful error and that the Judge's decision was supported by the evidence. The Board also noted that any error regarding the formal finding on one allegation was harmless.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Moira Modzelewski
Allison Marie

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. 22-01317

)

) 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: April 5, 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 October 7, 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 February 13, 2023, after considering the written record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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 received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in 2013; that he had two delinquent student loans totaling over $159,000; that he had seven delinquent consumer debts totaling about $18,000; and that he failed to file, as required, his Federal and state income tax returns for 2019 and 2020. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted all but one of the

allegations. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the allegation that he denied, a consumer debt for about $3,100, and against him on the remaining allegations.1 Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. Rather, it states that he did not understand the process below and requests another opportunity to present evidence. To the extent that Applicant is contending he was denied due process, we do not find any merit in that argument. When the SOR was issued, Applicant was provided a copy of the Directive, which sets forth the rules and procedures for adjudicating industrial security clearance eligibility. On November 22, 2022, the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) was mailed to Applicant. The FORM contained the Government’s evidence and arguments, and it advised Applicant that he had the opportunity to submit objections or documentary evidence in rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation, as appropriate. It further stated, “If you do not file any objections or submit any additional information within 30 days of receipt of this letter, your case will be assigned to an Administrative Judge for a determination based solely on this FORM.” FORM at 3, emphasis added. Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM. The Board only has authority to remand a case (e.g., to reopen a case for receipt of additional evidence) to correct an error identified in the proceeding below. Directive E3.1.33.2. Applicant failed to establish that he was denied any due process afforded by the Directive, that any error occurred below, or that he should be granted any form of relief. 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. 1 The Judge failed to make a formal finding regarding SOR ¶ 1.b. Executive Order 10865 § 3(7) requires that findings be made for or against each SOR allegation. In this case, such an error was harmless.

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: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board