A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-02231
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 4, 2025 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced financial concerns under Guideline F due to 16 delinquent debts totaling approximately $63,300 and an IRS notice of payment due of about $7,200. The judge found favorably on 10 debts but adversely on 6, totaling about $55,600, primarily due to insufficient evidence of debt repayment. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not allege harmful error.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to 16 delinquent debts totaling approximately $63,300 and an IRS notice of payment due of about $7,200.
- The judge found adversely on 6 debts totaling about $55,600 based on the timing of debt resolution efforts and lack of evidence of repayment.
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2023-12-11
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2025-05-02
- Decision date
- 2025-06-04
Cite for
- Burden of Proof on the Appealing Party to Allege Harmful Error
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- Financial Considerations 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
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant admitted to the debts but did not raise any specific claims of error on appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
--------------- )
ISCR Case No. 23-02231
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)
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
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 December 11, 2023, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On May 2, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Discussion
The SOR alleged 16 delinquent debts totaling approximately $63,300 and an IRS notice of payment due in the approximate amount of $7,200. In her response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations, although she disputed the amount of one debt. The Judge found favorably on 10 of the alleged debts and on the IRS balance. He found adversely on the remaining six delinquent
debts, which totaled about $55,600, based largely on the timing of Applicant’s debt resolution efforts and lack of evidence demonstrating debt repayment. There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity. Directive ¶ E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of error, but rather reiterates her explanation for the debts and her resolution efforts and provides additional context for her financial issues. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, Applicant argues that she is not a threat to national security and highlights that she requires a security clearance to retain her job. The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. 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. 23-02231 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board