A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-02372
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 9, 2024 · Administrative Judge James B. Norman · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed the initial denial, noting that the applicant did not assert any errors in the judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's financial concerns were deemed significant enough to warrant denial of the security clearance.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 18 Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- Decision Date
- 2024-10-09
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
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.
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. 22-02372
)
) 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 9, 2024
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 28, 2022, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Concerns) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On August 26, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Nichole L. Noel denied Applicant security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of error on the part of the Judge. Instead, he provides additional information about the circumstances that led to his financial issues and his efforts to resolve them. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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 made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is sustainable.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 22-02372 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board