CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01614 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01614

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/16/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case ISCR Case No. 23-01614) →See the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 23-01614) →See the hearing decision (Case 23-01614) →
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 security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined twelve financial issues, including eleven federal tax debts from tax years 2010 to 2022 and one state income tax debt from 2018. Initially, the administrative judge found that the government did not meet its burden of proof, but upon appeal, the case was remanded for further consideration.
During the remand, the new administrative judge determined that the government had established its prima facie case regarding the federal tax debts, while the applicant had successfully mitigated the state tax debt. The applicant, who represented himself during the appeal, did not present specific errors in the judge's findings but requested reinstatement of the initial favorable decision. The Appeal Board found that the remand judge's conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious and that the evidence supported the decision to deny national security eligibility.
Ultimately, the Appeal Board affirmed the unfavorable remand decision, emphasizing that any doubts regarding personnel considered for national security eligibility must be resolved in favor of national security.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Withdrawn
- 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. 23-01614

Jul 16, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing themselves, was denied a clearance primarily due to financial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The initial decision to deny was based on the applicant's failure to adequately address these financial issues.

The applicant appealed this decision, but the Appeal Board affirmed the unfavorable remand decision. The Board concluded that the judge's findings regarding the applicant's financial situation were sustainable and found no errors in the judge's conclusions.

Specifically, the denial was rooted in Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 18, which pertains to financial irresponsibility. The applicant did not establish any errors in the judge's determination that their financial conduct warranted denial under Guideline F, leading to the final outcome of denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 18raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

Decision DateJul 16, 2025

Cite For

Affirmation of Unfavorable Remand Decisions
Sustainability of Judge's Findings
Insufficient Rebuttal of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F

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 security clearance denial based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The initial decision granted eligibility, but the government appealed, leading to a remand where the second judge denied eligibility. The applicant, now pro se, appealed the remand decision without alleging specific harmful errors. The Board affirmed the unfavorable remand decision.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPamela C. Benson — granted the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged no specific harmful errors by Judge Harvey.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that Judge Harvey did not take into account the 'whole person' concept.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions upon remand were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and that the record supported the Judge's findings and conclusions.

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
Jennifer I. 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.