CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02201 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02201

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/21/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02201) →
Participants
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a government contractor in his early forties who had worked for the same employer since 2010 and had served in combat zones. The Department of Defense (DoD) denied him a security clearance based on financial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), specifically citing delinquent federal and state taxes totaling over $47,000. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined three main allegations related to his tax delinquencies for the years 2012, 2014, and 2014-2018.
The administrative judge found that the applicant admitted to the tax delinquencies but attributed them to personal circumstances, including a divorce and a child custody dispute. He claimed to have taken steps to resolve his tax issues, such as hiring accounting firms to file late returns and entering into payment plans. However, the judge noted that the applicant did not file his federal tax returns until 2019 and only sought to address his federal tax debt in 2023, after significant delays. The judge concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate responsible behavior or good faith in managing his tax obligations.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, affirming the DoD's decision to deny security clearance. The judge reasoned that while some mitigating factors were present, they did not sufficiently outweigh the applicant's history of delayed action and failure to file taxes in a timely manner. The judge emphasized that the applicant's explanations did not adequately justify the length of the delays, leading to doubts about his judgment and reliability. The decision was subsequently affirmed by the Appeal Board.
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. 23-02201

Mar 21, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A government contractor in his early forties was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant tax delinquencies totaling approximately $47,700. The appeal board upheld the denial, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate responsible action or good faith in addressing these financial issues.

Disqualifying conditions were raised, while mitigating conditions, including claims of marital issues and COVID-19 impacts, were considered. However, the board determined these were insufficient to overcome the concerns.

The denial was primarily based on the applicant's failure to address the delinquent taxes until after significant delays, including the garnishment of bank accounts. Additionally, the late filing of federal tax returns for 2020 through 2022 further undermined claims of responsible financial behavior, leading to the final decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedThe Individual Acted Under Circumstances That Were Beyond Their ControlThe applicant did not act responsibly or in good faith despite personal circumstances.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedThe Individual Has Taken Significant Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Financial ProblemsThe timing of the applicant's actions did not sufficiently mitigate security concerns.
AG ¶ 20(g)appliedThe Individual Has Made Arrangements with the Appropriate Tax Authority to File or Pay the Amount Owed and Is in Compliance with Those ArrangementsPartial compliance with tax arrangements was noted, but did not fully mitigate concerns.

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 issuedJan 22, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 30, 2025
Decision dateMar 21, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Good Faith in Addressing Financial Delinquencies
Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Responsibility
Affirmation of Denial Based on Timing of Financial Actions

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 related to tax delinquencies. The applicant argued that the Administrative Judge failed to consider all mitigating evidence. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowBenjamin R. Dorsey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge failed to consider all the evidence in mitigation, rendering his decision arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record. The Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious, and the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error.

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.