CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02256 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02256

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/6/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02256) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
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) outlined six consumer and auto debts totaling approximately $30,000, which were delinquent. The applicant admitted to the allegations but provided explanations and requested a decision based on the written record.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had resolved five of the six debts and had initiated a repayment plan for the remaining debt as of March 2024. However, the judge determined that the mitigating conditions were not fully established due to the recency of the applicant's resolution efforts and a lack of clarity regarding his financial situation. The applicant's history of financial mismanagement and the timing of his actions, which occurred after the SOR was issued, negatively impacted the assessment of his eligibility.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, stating that while some mitigating evidence was present, it did not outweigh the unfavorable aspects of the applicant's financial history. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, noting that the applicant did not demonstrate any factual or legal error in the judge's findings.
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. 23-02256

Feb 6, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

This DOHA security clearance appeal, decided under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), resulted in a denial. The applicant, representing himself, faced concerns regarding six debts totaling approximately $30,000. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 were raised due to these financial issues.

While the applicant resolved five of the debts and initiated a repayment plan for the sixth, these efforts largely occurred after the Statement of Reasons was issued. The judges found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of overall financial stability. Furthermore, a lack of comprehensive financial disclosure from the applicant hindered a full evaluation of his financial situation.

Despite the application of mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(a), (b), (c), and (d), the judges ultimately affirmed the denial of the security clearance on appeal, concluding that the applicant had not adequately mitigated the financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's resolution efforts occurred only after the SOR was issued.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedThe Individual Has Received Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant did not provide evidence of effective financial counseling.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Plan to Repay the DebtsThe applicant's repayment plan was not established prior to the SOR.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedThe Individual Has Taken Significant Steps to Reduce or Eliminate DebtsWhile some debts were resolved, the overall financial management remained unclear.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 11, 2023
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateFeb 6, 2025Appeal affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Stability Under Guideline F
Timing of Debt Resolution Efforts Impacting Credibility
Burden of Proof on Applicant in Appeal Cases

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations. The applicant argued that he had complied with the issues raised in the Statement of Reasons, but the Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding that the applicant did not meet the burden of demonstrating harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGatha LaFaye — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that he complied with all issues listed in the SOR.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

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.