CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02653 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02653

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/30/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02653) →
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 had five delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $15,000 and a federal tax balance of about $9,600 for multiple tax years. The applicant admitted to the allegations but provided explanations regarding her financial situation.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had made progress in addressing some debts, having paid off two smaller debts and was making monthly payments on a third. However, the judge noted that the applicant had not made payments on two other debts since leaving her job in 2022, leading to adverse findings on those accounts. Regarding the federal tax debt, the judge acknowledged a reduction in the balance but highlighted the applicant's history of fraudulent tax filings, which contributed to the adverse ruling.
Ultimately, the administrative judge denied the applicant's request for national security eligibility, stating that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient mitigation of the financial issues. The judge's decision was affirmed on appeal, as the findings were deemed sustainable and consistent with national security interests.
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. 23-02653

Apr 30, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant had five delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $15,000 and a federal tax balance of about $9,600.

The applicant admitted to these allegations but failed to resolve two significant debts. A contributing factor to the adverse decision was the applicant's history of over-claiming tax exemptions. The appeal board upheld the denial, emphasizing the applicant's history of over-claiming tax exemptions and the lack of resolution for significant debts as critical factors. The outcome was a denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedMar 18, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 31, 2025
Decision dateApr 30, 2025Appeal decision

Cite For

Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance
Over-claiming Tax Exemptions as a Disqualifying Factor

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, specifically delinquent debts and a federal tax balance. The Applicant challenged the findings related to two consumer debts and the federal tax balance. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in finding that two consumer debts remained unpaid.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge incorrectly assessed her federal tax balance.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious. The adverse findings regarding the unpaid debts and the federal tax balance were upheld as sustainable based on the evidence presented.

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
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Allison Marie

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.