CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-02372 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-02372

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date10/9/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-02372) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied due to concerns related to financial issues, specifically under Guideline F (Financial Concerns) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued on December 28, 2022, outlined the basis for the denial, citing the applicant's financial difficulties as a potential risk to national security.
During the proceedings, the applicant acknowledged the existence of financial problems but provided additional context regarding the circumstances that led to these issues and his efforts to address them. However, the applicant did not contest the administrative judge's findings or assert any errors in the decision-making process. Instead, he submitted new information on appeal, which the Appeal Board could not consider, as it is limited to reviewing claims of harmful error by the judge.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the financial concerns raised were significant enough to warrant denial of the security clearance. The Appeal Board affirmed this decision, stating that the applicant's failure to allege any harmful error by the judge rendered the original ruling sustainable.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 22-02372

Oct 9, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The Appeal Board affirmed the initial denial, noting that the applicant did not assert any errors in the judge's decision.

The denial was based on significant financial concerns, which were deemed serious enough to warrant the denial of the security clearance. The specific disqualifying condition raised was AG ¶ 18.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied due to these unresolved financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 18raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

Decision DateOct 9, 2024

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Asserting Errors in Appeal Process
Self-representation in Security Clearance 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 was in response to the denial of a security clearance based on financial concerns. The Applicant did not assert any errors in the Judge's decision but provided additional context regarding his financial issues. The Board affirmed the denial as there were no allegations of harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNichole L. Noel — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
James B. Norman

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.