CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01908 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-01908denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-01908

Oct 31, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to ongoing financial issues. The applicant admitted to most allegations of delinquent debts but disputed two.

The judge found that despite the applicant's claims of responsibility and improvement, he continued to experience financial problems and did not demonstrate that future issues were unlikely. Disqualifying condition F.1 was raised, while mitigating conditions F.2 and F.3 were applied.

Ultimately, the denial was affirmed on appeal because the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Led to the Financial Problems Were Temporary and Have Been Resolved.The judge found that the applicant's financial problems were ongoing.
F.3rejectedThe Applicant Has Shown a Good Faith Effort to Repay Debts.The judge determined that the applicant had the means to address debts but chose not to.

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.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.32.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 17, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 1, 2023after the record closed
Decision dateOct 31, 2023

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· 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 appeal and merely disagreed with the Judge's conclusions. The Board affirmed the denial of security clearance eligibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
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. 22-01908

)

) 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

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 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