CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02885 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-02885

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/30/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski
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 under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined 13 delinquent accounts, which the applicant admitted in his response. He requested a decision based on the written record and provided limited documentation to support his case.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had favorable evidence for four of the delinquent accounts but ruled adversely on nine. The applicant's appeal included claims that documents were overlooked, that some debts had surpassed the statute of limitations, and that the judge's Whole Person analysis was flawed. However, the Appeal Board determined that the applicant did not substantiate his claims regarding missing documents and that the statute of limitations did not negate the relevance of the debts for security clearance purposes. The Board affirmed the judge's decision, stating that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error and that the judge had adequately considered the evidence in relation to national security interests.
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. 23-02885

Dec 30, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant admitted to 13 delinquent accounts, which raised disqualifying conditions F.1 and F.2.

The Judge found four of these accounts favorable, but nine remained adverse. While mitigating conditions F.3 and F.4 were applied, they were insufficient to overcome the concerns. The primary reason for denial was the nine delinquent accounts that had not been favorably resolved.

The Judge's decision to deny the clearance was subsequently affirmed on appeal, with no harmful error found in the initial ruling.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Accounts

Mitigating

F.3rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Applicant's ControlThe Judge found that the applicant's financial issues were not sufficiently mitigated.
F.4rejectedThe Applicant Has Made Efforts to Repay DebtsThe Judge did not find the applicant's efforts to be adequate.

Procedural Posture

Decision DateDec 30, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Multiple Delinquent Accounts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Affirmation of a Judge's Decision in an Appeal Process

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 under Guideline F. The applicant argued that documents were not considered, some debts were beyond the statute of limitations, and the Judge's Whole Person analysis was flawed. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEric H. Borgstrom — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged that documents were not considered, debts have passed the statute of limitations, and the Judge failed in his Whole Person analysis.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision, affirming that the Judge adequately considered the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

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
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.