CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02914 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02914

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/29/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02914) →
Participants
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a mid-forties individual who had held security clearances from 2008 to 2024. The Department of Defense (DoD) denied the applicant a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) related to unpaid federal taxes for the years 2018 through 2022, totaling approximately $17,500. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined six financial concerns, all of which the applicant admitted.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had attributed her tax delinquencies to excessive exemptions taken for medical bills. Although she had entered into installment agreements with the IRS for some tax years, these agreements lapsed without payments, and she did not establish agreements for the subsequent years. The applicant made minimal payments outside of these agreements and was current on other debts, earning an annual salary of $100,000. However, the judge concluded that the applicant's repeated failures to address her tax obligations in a timely manner precluded the application of any mitigating conditions.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, affirming the denial of security clearance eligibility. The judge stated that the applicant's financial issues raised significant concerns regarding her vulnerability to coercion and influence, which are critical in national security determinations. The appeal board upheld the judge's decision, finding that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's analysis or application of the law.
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. 23-02914

Jan 29, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A woman in her mid-forties was denied a U.S. DOHA security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unpaid federal taxes. The applicant owed approximately $17,500 in taxes from 2018 to 2022 and admitted to the allegations.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to timely address her federal tax obligations, including allowing installment agreements to lapse. The judge determined that none of the potentially applicable mitigating conditions applied, citing the applicant's repeated failures to resolve her tax delinquencies.

The appeal board upheld the denial, concluding that the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error in the judge's findings or analysis. The outcome of the security clearance decision was DENIED.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedFeb 2, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 3, 2024
Decision dateJan 29, 2025

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Timely Addressing Financial Obligations for Security Clearance
Standard for Reviewing Harmful Error in Appeal Decisions

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 related to unpaid federal taxes. The Applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider mitigating evidence, but the Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to consider all the evidence in mitigation, rendering his decision arbitrary and capricious.

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 demonstrate 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
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.