A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-01908
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 31, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial issues, admitting to most allegations of delinquent debts but disputing two. The judge found ongoing financial problems despite the applicant's claims of responsibility and improvement, leading to the denial being affirmed on appeal as no harmful error was asserted by the applicant.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had ongoing financial issues despite claims of responsibility and improvement.
- The applicant did not demonstrate that future financial problems were unlikely.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- F.2 The conditions that led to the financial problems were temporary and have been resolved.rejected
- F.3 The applicant has shown a good faith effort to repay debts.rejected
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
- 2023-01-17
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2023-09-01 after the record closed
- Decision date
- 2023-10-31
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Ongoing Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Affirmation of Denial on Appeal When No Harmful Error Is Asserted
- Weighing of Evidence by the Judge Is Not Subject to De Novo Review by the Appeal Board.
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 security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal and merely disagreed with the Judge's conclusions. The Board affirmed the denial of security clearance eligibility.
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. 22-01908
)
) 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: October 31, 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 January 17, 2023, 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 (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective Jun. 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 1, 2023, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had six delinquent debts. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted all but two allegations in which he denied because the debts were charged off. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the allegations. In summarizing the decision, the Judge stated, “Although Applicant can attribute his current financial difficulties to periods of
unemployment, his financial problems are ongoing. Despite having the financial wherewithal to address them, Applicant has chosen not to do so. He has not demonstrated that future financial problems are unlikely.” Decision at 5. Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error, nor does he dispute the Judge’s findings or conclusions. Rather, it merely argues why his demonstrated responsibility, financial improvements, and lack of other disqualifying factors support reconsideration of his clearance eligibility. Appeal Brief at 1. Applicant’s argument amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not sufficient to demonstrate that he weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Id. 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. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. 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: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board