CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02231 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02231

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/4/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02231) →
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 from the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined 16 delinquent debts totaling approximately $63,300, along with an IRS notice of payment due for about $7,200.
In her response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to all allegations but disputed the amount of one debt. The administrative judge found favorably on 10 of the debts and the IRS balance but ruled adversely on six debts, totaling around $55,600. This decision was based on the timing of the applicant's debt resolution efforts and a lack of evidence demonstrating repayment. On appeal, the applicant reiterated her explanations and provided additional context regarding her financial issues but did not assert any specific errors in the judge's decision.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's ruling, stating that the applicant had not alleged any harmful error and that the Board's review was limited to claims of error. Consequently, the decision denying the applicant national security eligibility was upheld.
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. 23-02231

Jun 4, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts. The applicant admitted to 16 delinquent debts totaling approximately $63,300, in addition to an IRS notice for about $7,200.

While the judge found favorably on 10 of the debts, an adverse finding was made on 6 debts, totaling about $55,600. This was primarily due to the timing of the applicant's debt resolution efforts and insufficient evidence of repayment for these specific obligations.

The applicant appealed the decision but did not allege any harmful error in the initial ruling. Consequently, the appeal was denied, and the security clearance was ultimately denied based on the unresolved financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 11, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 2, 2025
Decision dateJun 4, 2025

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error, and the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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.