CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02593 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02593

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/11/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02593) →
Participants
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant, a military veteran in her mid-thirties, sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied due to financial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined five delinquent debts totaling approximately $31,300, which the applicant admitted but claimed would soon fall off her credit report due to age. The applicant's financial difficulties were exacerbated by her decision to prioritize her husband's debts, as he required a security clearance for his military service.
During the proceedings, the applicant acknowledged her debts but did not intend to pay them, citing the statute of limitations and the potential negative impact on her credit score if she settled. The administrative judge found that the applicant had not acted responsibly regarding her financial obligations and had not made a good-faith effort to resolve her debts. The judge noted that while the applicant's circumstances were challenging, her choices contributed to her financial issues, which raised concerns about her reliability and judgment.
The Appeal Board affirmed the judge's decision, stating that the record supported the conclusion that the applicant's financial history cast doubt on her trustworthiness. The Board emphasized that the security clearance process evaluates an applicant's judgment and reliability, and the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the judge's decision was arbitrary or capricious.
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. 23-02593

Sep 11, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

In ISCR Case No. 23-02593, a security clearance applicant was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to admitted debts totaling approximately $31,300. The appeal board identified several disqualifying conditions, specifically F.1, F.2, and F.3, which contributed to the denial.

The primary reasons for the denial centered on the applicant's handling of her financial obligations. The board determined there was a lack of good faith in her efforts to address the significant debts. This finding, coupled with the substantial amount owed, raised concerns about her financial responsibility.

Ultimately, the appeal board concluded that the applicant's financial conduct indicated ongoing issues with reliability and trustworthiness. These concerns were significant enough to warrant the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Accounts
F.3raisedFailure to Meet Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“The applicant's lack of good faith in addressing her debts raises ongoing concerns regarding her reliability and trustworthiness.”

Procedural Posture

Decision DateSep 11, 2024

Cite For

Lack of Good Faith in Addressing Debts Under Guideline F
Financial Concerns Impacting Reliability and Trustworthiness
Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Issues

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. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious, but the Board affirmed the decision, finding it adequately supported by the record and consistent with legal standards.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the security clearance.

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
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.