CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01447 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01447

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/16/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-01447) →
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 was a retired military individual in his late 60s, who had been employed by defense contractors since 2002. The Department of Defense (DoD) denied him a security clearance based on allegations under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons indicated that the applicant failed to timely file federal and state tax returns for tax years 2018 through 2022, owed $59,360 in federal taxes for 2011 through 2017, and had approximately $38,000 in delinquent student loans.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations but provided explanations for his financial difficulties, attributing them to periods of unemployment and personal circumstances. He filed his overdue tax returns in October 2023 and enrolled in a repayment program for his student loans. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in addressing his financial obligations, particularly noting that his compliance came only after being notified of the security clearance jeopardy.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's security clearance, concluding that his past failures to comply with tax laws and manage his debts raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability. The appeal board affirmed this decision, stating that the applicant's actions did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns, emphasizing that a security clearance requires a high degree of trustworthiness and adherence to legal obligations.
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. 23-01447

Sep 16, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing themselves, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant admitted to the allegations, which included a failure to file tax returns and the presence of delinquent debts.

The denial was based on the applicant's acknowledgment of these financial problems and a subsequent failure to demonstrate responsible actions to resolve them. Specifically, the disqualifying condition AG ¶ 20 was raised.

The appeal affirmed the initial decision, concluding that the applicant had not taken sufficient steps to rectify the admitted financial issues. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

Decision DateSep 16, 2024

Cite For

Importance of Compliance with Financial Obligations for Security Clearance Eligibility
Impact of Unresolved Financial Issues on Security Clearance Decisions
Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Responsible Action Regarding Financial Matters

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, specifically the Applicant's failure to file tax returns and pay debts. The Applicant challenged the Judge's findings but the Board found no harmful error and affirmed the decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged that the Judge's decision was erroneous.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Judge's factual findings and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that he acted responsibly to address his financial obligations.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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.