CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-01174 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-01174

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/17/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-01174) →
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 considerations, specifically under Guideline F of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued on September 26, 2022, outlined 14 allegations against the applicant, of which the administrative judge found favorably on three.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to some financial issues but did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns raised in the SOR. The applicant did not contest the judge's findings but instead sought reconsideration of the decision. The administrative judge ultimately ruled against the applicant, citing a lack of compelling evidence to demonstrate that the financial issues had been resolved or that they would not pose a future risk to national security.
On appeal, the Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the judge's ruling. The Board's review was limited to the existing record, and since no errors were identified, the denial of the security clearance was upheld.
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. 22-01174

Dec 17, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Administrative Judge considered fourteen allegations related to the applicant's financial history, finding favorably on three of them. However, the Judge ultimately determined that the remaining issues presented disqualifying conditions F.1, F.2, and F.3, which outweighed the mitigating conditions F.4 and F.5.

The Judge's decision to deny the clearance was based on the applicant's failure to resolve significant financial concerns. Upon appeal, the applicant did not allege any error in the Administrative Judge's original decision.

Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial, upholding the initial finding that the applicant's unresolved financial issues posed an unacceptable security risk.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Accounts
F.3raisedFailure to File or Pay Taxes

Mitigating

F.4rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe Judge found that the applicant's financial issues were not sufficiently mitigated.
F.5rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Financial ProblemsThe applicant did not provide evidence of effective financial counseling.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 26, 2022
Answer filed—Applicant represented themselves.
Hearing heldOct 25, 2024
Decision dateDec 17, 2024Appeal affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Importance of Alleging Error for Successful Appeals

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 an Applicant seeking security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The Administrative Judge found in favor of the Applicant on three of the fourteen allegations but ultimately denied the clearance. The Applicant appealed without alleging any specific harmful error, leading the Board to affirm the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

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.