Loading case…

ISCR 22-01864: Guideline E security clearance appeal, denied (2025) · CASE

ISCR Case 22-01864denied

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 did not identify any specific harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and instead argued for an alternative interpretation of the evidence. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

------------ )

ISCR Case No. 22-01864

)

) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: June 4, 2025

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On March 17, 2023, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On March 21, 2025, after conducting a hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert Tuider denied Applicant national security eligibility. The Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant has appeared before DOHA twice. The first appearance was in 2020 and involved allegations under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Judge at that time found that Applicant had mitigated all of the Government’s concerns related to his foreign relatives, delinquent debt, and falsification of his June 2018 security clearance application (SCA) by failing to disclose his

delinquent debts. With respect to the allegations under Guideline F, the Judge’s mitigating analysis relied on the Applicant’s stated plan to resolve all of his debts and evidence of a few payments he had made to resolve them. However, after he was granted eligibility, several of his delinquencies were not resolved. On March 17, 2023, DoD issued a second SOR to Applicant, which contained the allegations that led to this appeal. The Judge found adversely to Applicant on four Guideline F allegations (SOR ¶¶ 1.fthrough 1.hand 1.k), which included findings that Applicant failed to resolve previously-alleged debts totaling approximately $3,800, despite his prior plan in 2020 to resolve them. He found in favor of Applicant on SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.e, 1.i, and 1.j, and SOR ¶¶ 1.land 1.mwere withdrawn. The Judge also found adversely to Applicant on the sole Guideline E allegation — that he intentionally failed to disclose his debts on his September 22, 2021, SCA as required in Section 26 of that form. The Judge noted that “to answer the same question three years later with a ‘No’ in response to a straightforward question about his seven-year debt history demonstrates a severe lack of candor and lack of judgment.” Decision at 13. 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. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. In Applicant’s appeal, he failed to identify any specific error. Instead, he argues for an alternative interpretation of the evidence and claims that he feels “picked on.” He appears to read the Judge’s decision as initiating a third adjudication and threat to revoke his security clearance eligibility, rather than a reaching a decision on the second (and current) SOR. To the extent that he provides new details about his financial status in his appeal, the Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant national security eligibility is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision in ISCR Case No. 22-01864 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer Goldstein Jennifer Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board