CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02036 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02036

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/27/2025
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02036) →See the hearing decision (Case 23-02036) →
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). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant failed to timely file federal and state tax returns for multiple years and had significant outstanding tax debts, totaling approximately $98,000. The applicant admitted to the allegations, stating that he had filed the overdue tax returns and was working on a payment plan for the federal tax debt.
The administrative judge found that while the applicant had made some progress in addressing his tax issues, including paying off a state tax debt and making partial payments towards his federal tax obligations, the evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate a clear commitment to resolving the remaining debts. The judge concluded that granting the applicant national security eligibility was not consistent with the national interest, citing a lack of corroborating documentation for the applicant's assurances regarding future compliance. The case was subsequently remanded due to errors in the consideration of evidence, specifically the omission of certain documentation that could have impacted the outcome of the decision.
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. 23-02036

Mar 27, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who was initially denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unfiled tax returns and substantial tax debts. The applicant, representing himself, admitted to the allegations, which included failing to timely file federal and state tax returns for multiple years.

Specific financial issues cited were approximately $22,000 owed to the state and $76,000 owed to the federal government. While the applicant claimed to be addressing these issues, the initial decision was remanded for reconsideration.

The remand was necessary because evidence that could potentially impact the outcome had been omitted from the initial review. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20 were raised, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 21(a) and AG ¶ 21(c) were applied. Ultimately, no final outcome has been reached in this case.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's tax issues were ongoing and not resolved.
AG ¶ 21(c)rejectedThe Individual Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant's assurances lacked sufficient documentation to corroborate his claims.

Key Rule Quoted

“A decision must set forth findings and conclusions with sufficient specificity and clarity that the parties and the Board can discern what the judge is finding and concluding.”
— ISCR Case No. 98-0809 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 19, 1999)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 29, 2024
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldJan 30, 2025
Decision dateMar 27, 2025Decision remanded for reconsideration.

Cite For

Remand for Reconsideration of Omitted Evidence Affecting Financial Eligibility Under Guideline F
Importance of Sufficient Documentation in Addressing Financial Delinquencies
Clarity Required in Judicial Findings and Conclusions.

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

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant appealed, arguing that the Judge did not consider all submitted evidence regarding tax payments and that there were inconsistencies in the Judge's findings. The Board remanded the case for further review and consideration of the omitted evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge failed to consider all evidence submitted by the Applicant regarding tax payments.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge's findings regarding state tax balances were inconsistent and lacked explanation.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge failed to consider all relevant evidence submitted by the Applicant, which may have impacted the outcome of the case. Additionally, inconsistencies in the Judge's findings required clarification.

Ignored material evidenceIncomplete record

On remand, the judge must

Reopen the record to address the errors identified, including considering Applicant’s November 21 and December 30 FORM responses, and issue a new decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo de-novo re-decisionProcedural compliance

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.