CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01339 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01339

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/17/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-01339) →
Participants
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had three delinquent consumer debts and that several family members were residents or citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The applicant admitted to one of the debts, denied the other two, and acknowledged the allegations related to foreign influence.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the concerns raised. While the applicant denied two debts, the judge ruled against him on the one remaining debt and on all allegations under Guideline B. The applicant claimed to have submitted additional information in response to the Government's file of relevant information (FORM), but the judge noted that there was no record of such submissions. The applicant's assertion was deemed insufficient to demonstrate that he had been denied due process. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant did not meet the burden of proof necessary for a security clearance, affirming the denial based on national security interests.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- 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. 23-01339

Jun 17, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant admitted to one financial debt and all allegations related to foreign influence.

Regarding the financial concerns, the applicant initially denied two additional debts, but the Judge ultimately found against the applicant on these matters. The Judge also found against the applicant on all Guideline B allegations.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was denied. The appellate authority affirmed the Judge's decision, concluding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the initial ruling.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20appliedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 6appliedForeign Influence

Procedural Posture

Decision DateJun 17, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Denial of Security Clearance Due to Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Affirmation of Appeal When No Harmful Error Is Demonstrated

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 and foreign influence. The Applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider additional evidence he submitted and that the weighing of evidence was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that the Judge erred by not considering additional information he submitted in response to the FORM.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's weighing of the evidence was arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance. The Applicant's claims regarding additional evidence were not substantiated, and the Judge's weighing of the evidence was deemed appropriate.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
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.