CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02889 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02889

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/14/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02889) →
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) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined seven financial issues, including approximately $16,300 in federal tax debt, about $29,100 in state tax debt, and five charged-off consumer accounts totaling around $12,000. While the applicant was found to have favorable circumstances regarding the personal conduct allegations, the tax delinquencies remained a significant concern.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had made some payments towards his tax debts after the SOR was issued, including approximately $3,100 to the state and $200 to the IRS. However, the judge noted that the applicant had a history of delinquent taxes spanning over ten years and concluded that these recent payments did not demonstrate a sufficient "meaningful track record" of financial responsibility. The applicant did not contest the judge's specific findings but argued that his recent efforts were not adequately considered.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, affirming the denial of the security clearance. The decision emphasized that the timing of the applicant's debt resolution efforts raised concerns about his judgment and self-discipline, which are critical factors in evaluating eligibility for national security positions. The Appeal Board upheld the judge's conclusion, stating that the applicant had not established harmful error in the decision-making process.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- 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. 23-02889

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 concerned the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge did not appropriately weigh his recent efforts to address his financial issues. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

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's conclusions regarding the applicant's financial delinquencies were well-grounded in precedent and that the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error in the Judge's decision.

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.