Loading case…

ISCR 23-02889: Guideline E security clearance appeal, denied (2025) · CASE

ISCR Case 23-02889denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-02889

Apr 14, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance primarily under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from significant tax delinquencies and charged-off debts, which were identified as disqualifying conditions.

While the applicant made some recent payment efforts, these occurred only after the Statement of Reasons was issued, indicating a lack of proactive financial management. The Appeal Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a meaningful financial track record sufficient to mitigate the tax delinquencies.

Ultimately, the Appeal Board upheld the denial, concluding that the applicant's arguments did not sufficiently challenge the Judge's findings or conclusions regarding his financial issues and personal conduct.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant has significant tax delinquencies and charged-off debts.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's recent payment efforts were deemed insufficient to establish a meaningful track record.

Key rule quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedFeb 26, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateApr 14, 2025

Cite for

Insufficient Financial Track Record Under Guideline F
Importance of Timing in Debt Resolution Efforts
Criteria for Evaluating Mitigation of Financial Concerns

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 was in response to a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding that the Applicant's recent efforts to mitigate tax delinquencies were insufficient and did not demonstrate a meaningful financial track record.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge did not give appropriate weight to his recent efforts to mitigate the security concerns.

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. The 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)
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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

--------- )

ISCR Case No. 23-02889

)

) 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: April 14, 2025

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 February 26, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) 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 February 18, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged seven financial concerns: that Applicant is indebted to the federal government for delinquent taxes in the approximate amount of $16,300; that he is indebted to his state of residence for approximately $29,100 in delinquent taxes; and that he has five consumer accounts that have been charged off, with delinquent debt totaling about $12,000. Under Guideline E, the SOR alleged various disciplinary actions at prior employers. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on the Guideline E allegations and on the Guideline F consumer debt allegations, but adversely on the two allegations of federal and state tax delinquencies.

In concluding that Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his tax delinquencies, the Judge highlighted several factors, including: that Applicant’s most recent payment plans with both tax authorities were made after the SOR was issued; that he has paid the state tax authority approximately $3,100 on a $26,000 tax debt; and that, in 2024, Applicant paid the IRS $200 on a $21,000 federal tax debt. Noting that Applicant has had delinquent federal and state income taxes for more than ten years, the Judge concluded that these payments were insufficient to establish the requisite “meaningful track record” for either debt. Decision at 13. Applicant has not challenged any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact. Instead, Applicant argues broadly that the Judge “made his decision based on [his] past” and did not give appropriate weight to his recent efforts to mitigate the security concerns. Appeal Brief at 1. It is well settled, however, that the timing of debt resolution efforts is an important factor in evaluating mitigation “because an applicant who begins to resolve financial problems only after being placed on notice that his clearance was in jeopardy may lack the judgment and self-discipline to follow rules and regulations over time or when there is no immediate threat to his own interests.” ISCR Case No. 15-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 26, 2017). Similarly, the Board has long held that, until an applicant has a “meaningful financial track record,” it cannot be said “that he has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” ISCR Case No. 01-21386 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 11, 2003). The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s recent efforts were insufficient to establish such a track record or fully mitigate the financial concerns was well-grounded in the Appeal Board precedent to which he cites. The remainder of Applicant’s brief merely advocates for an alternative weighing of the evidence. An applicant’s “disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). In conclusion, Applicant has not established that the Judge committed harmful error. Our review of the record reflects that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b).

ORDER

The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-02889 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