A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 24-00060
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 18, 2025 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to financial issues, including a 2009 bankruptcy and 23 delinquent debts totaling approximately $56,200. Despite acknowledging his financial difficulties and efforts to resolve them, the appeal board upheld the denial, finding that the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error in the judge's findings or evidence weighing.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had a 2009 bankruptcy and 23 delinquent debts totaling approximately $56,200.
- The judge found that the applicant accrued new past-due debts and had ongoing financial issues.
- The applicant did not challenge the judge's findings of fact on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(d) The individual has made good faith efforts to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.rejected
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2024-02-26
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2025-04-29
- Decision date
- 2025-06-18 Appeal decision
Cite for
- Financial Issues Impacting Security Clearance Under Guideline F
- Standards for Weighing Evidence in Security Clearance Cases
- The Importance of Demonstrating Harmful Error on Appeal
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
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations, including a bankruptcy and multiple delinquent debts. The Applicant did not challenge the Judge's findings but argued that the Judge failed to consider personal challenges and ongoing efforts to resolve debts. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's assessment.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
-------- )
ISCR Case No. 24-00060
)
) 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: June 18, 2025
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) 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 April 29, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Discussion
The SOR alleged a 2009 bankruptcy and 23 delinquent debts totaling approximately $56,200. In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations, noting that two of the alleged debts were paid. The Judge found favorably on the bankruptcy allegation and 11 of the alleged debts, but found adversely on the remaining 12 delinquent debts. The Judge acknowledged that events beyond Applicant’s control contributed to his financial difficulties and that Applicant
has taken steps to address several delinquencies. He noted, however, that Applicant has accrued new past-due debts, that his taxes are in disarray, and that his financial issues are recent and ongoing. On appeal, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s findings of fact. He asserts that the Judge failed to consider the challenges that his family has endured and his ongoing efforts to resolve his debts. Those arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, but none is sufficient to establish the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. Applicant reiterates his explanation for the debts, provides additional context for his financial issues, and highlights that he requires a security clearance to retain his job. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering either new evidence or the impact of an unfavorable decision. 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.’” Dept. of 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. 24-00060 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