CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01864 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 22-01864

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/4/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-01864) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a public trust position with the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued on March 17, 2023, highlighted the applicant's failure to resolve delinquent debts totaling approximately $3,800 and an allegation of intentional misrepresentation regarding these debts on his security clearance application.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to having unresolved debts but argued that he had a plan to address them. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant had not followed through on his previous commitments to resolve these debts. Additionally, the judge determined that the applicant's failure to disclose his debts on the September 22, 2021, application demonstrated a severe lack of candor and judgment. The judge ruled against the applicant on the relevant allegations, affirming the concerns raised by the DoD.
On appeal, the applicant did not identify any specific errors in the judge's decision but instead expressed feelings of being unfairly targeted. The Appeal Board noted that it could not consider new evidence or interpretations of the case and found that the judge's decision to deny the applicant national security eligibility was sustainable. Consequently, the decision was affirmed.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · 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. 22-01864

Jun 4, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to issues under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to resolve approximately $3,800 in previously alleged debts.

Additionally, the applicant intentionally omitted these debts from his security clearance application, submitted on September 22, 2021. These actions triggered disqualifying conditions related to both financial considerations and personal conduct.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was denied because he did not identify specific errors in the judge's initial ruling. Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was affirmed based on the unresolved financial obligations and the intentional failure to disclose them.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant intentionally failed to disclose his debts.
AG ¶ 19appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant had unresolved debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“On appeal, there is no presumption of error below, and the appealing party must raise claims of error with specificity and identify how the judge committed factual or legal error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 17, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJun 4, 2025Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Financial Information Under Guideline E
Unresolved Debts Under Guideline F
Requirements for Raising Claims of Error on Appeal

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 the denial of the Applicant's security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Applicant argued that he was unfairly treated and provided new details about his financial status, but did not identify any specific errors in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of eligibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Tuider — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant failed to identify any specific harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant did not raise any specific harmful error and therefore affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision denying national security eligibility.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
Jennifer Goldstein

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.