CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02854 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02854

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/9/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02854) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined eleven delinquent accounts totaling approximately $21,000, which had been placed for collection. The applicant had resolved one minor debt of $540 but had not adequately addressed the remaining debts prior to the issuance of the SOR.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had made some recent efforts to resolve his debts, including establishing payment plans for a $9,100 auto loan and a $4,400 utility debt. However, the judge noted that these efforts began only after the applicant was notified of the security clearance concerns, indicating a lack of proactive financial responsibility. The applicant argued that the judge overlooked certain exhibits demonstrating his debt resolution efforts and improperly referenced a child custody case, but the judge maintained that the timing of the applicant's actions and the overall financial situation did not sufficiently mitigate the concerns.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the applicant's recent payment efforts did not establish a meaningful track record of financial responsibility. The appeal board affirmed the judge's decision, stating that the applicant had not demonstrated harmful error and that the decision was 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. 23-02854

Jan 9, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial delinquencies. Eleven delinquent accounts, totaling approximately $21,000, raised concerns under Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a).

While the applicant did resolve some debts, these efforts began only after he was notified that his security clearance was in jeopardy. The judges applied Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(c) and AG ¶ 20(d), acknowledging some steps taken.

However, the applicant ultimately failed to demonstrate a consistent and meaningful financial track record of repayment. This lack of sustained effort, coupled with the timing of his debt resolution, led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's recent debt resolution efforts were deemed insufficient to demonstrate a sustained systematic method of payment.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's timing of debt resolution efforts was not viewed as voluntary.

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 9, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJan 9, 2025Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of a Consistent Repayment Track Record Under Guideline F
Importance of Timely Debt Resolution in Security Clearance Evaluations
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Due to the Timing of Debt Resolution Efforts.

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 under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Judge overlooked evidence of debt resolution efforts and improperly considered a child custody case. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the assessment of the evidence and the conclusions drawn.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — 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 overlooked pertinent exhibits demonstrating his debt resolution efforts.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge improperly considered his child custody case.

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. Applicant did not establish that the Judge committed 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
James B. Norman
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.