CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-01977 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-01977

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/28/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a woman in her late fifties who had held a security clearance since the mid-1980s and had been employed by her current employer since 2014. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), alleging that she failed to file federal income tax returns for tax years 2018 through 2021 and accumulated approximately $117,000 in delinquent credit card debt across ten accounts. The applicant admitted to the allegations but provided explanations regarding her financial situation.
The applicant attributed her financial difficulties to a failed business venture in 2014, claiming that the debt resulted from expenses incurred in anticipation of a contract that was ultimately rescinded. However, during the hearing, she struggled to provide specific details about these expenses and was unable to convincingly explain how she accumulated the debts. Although she had resolved some debts and established payment plans for others, the administrative judge found that the applicant's financial issues were recent and ongoing, and her inconsistent statements raised concerns about her reliability and judgment.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that none of the mitigating conditions applied to her case. The judge noted the significant amount of unresolved debt and the applicant's failure to provide a plausible explanation for her financial situation. The judge's decision emphasized that the applicant's financial irresponsibility and misleading statements undermined her trustworthiness, leading to the denial of her security clearance eligibility. The ruling was subsequently affirmed by the Appeal Board, which found no merit in the applicant's claims of error regarding the judge's findings or the government's burden of proof.
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. 22-01977

Jan 28, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A woman in her late fifties with a bachelor's degree was denied a U.S. DOHA security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from significant financial issues, including a failure to file tax returns for four consecutive years (2018 through 2021) and approximately $117,000 in delinquent credit card debt.

The applicant admitted to these allegations but did not provide satisfactory explanations for her financial conduct. The judge found her explanations to be evasive and lacking credibility, raising concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's financial history and her inability to adequately account for it presented an unacceptable security risk.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 14, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJan 28, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Importance of Credibility in Financial Disclosures
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility

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, represented by counsel, argued multiple errors in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful errors in the handling of the case.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowStephanie C. Hess — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in her findings of fact and conclusions of law.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The Government failed to carry its burden of proof.
Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to advise Applicant properly on her role as a pro se applicant.
Credibility determination — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in her credibility determination.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the errors alleged by the Applicant did not constitute harmful error. The Judge's credibility determinations were upheld, and the Government met its burden of proof regarding the financial concerns raised.

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.