CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00060 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00060

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/18/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00060) →
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 but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) cited a 2009 bankruptcy and 23 delinquent debts totaling approximately $56,200 as the basis for the denial.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to all allegations, indicating that he had paid off two of the debts. The administrative judge found favorably regarding the bankruptcy and 11 of the debts but ruled adversely on the remaining 12 delinquent debts. The judge acknowledged that the applicant faced challenges beyond his control that contributed to his financial difficulties and noted his efforts to address some delinquencies. However, the judge also pointed out that the applicant had accrued new debts and that his financial issues were ongoing.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, stating that the applicant did not challenge the findings of fact and merely disagreed with the judge's assessment of the evidence. The board concluded that the judge had provided a satisfactory explanation for the decision, emphasizing that a security clearance may only be granted when it is clearly consistent with national security interests, and any doubts must be resolved in favor of national security.
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. 24-00060

Jun 18, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. These included a 2009 bankruptcy and 23 delinquent debts totaling approximately $56,200. The judge found that the applicant continued to accrue new past-due debts, indicating ongoing financial difficulties.

While the applicant acknowledged his financial challenges and efforts toward resolution, he did not challenge the judge's factual findings on appeal. The appeal board upheld the denial, concluding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's assessment of the evidence or findings.

The denial was based on disqualifying conditions under Guideline F, specifically the history of financial irresponsibility and new delinquent debts. Although mitigating conditions were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the concerns regarding the applicant's persistent financial instability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedThe Individual Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts.The judge acknowledged efforts but found new debts and ongoing issues.

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 26, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 29, 2025
Decision dateJun 18, 2025Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — 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 failed to consider the challenges his family has endured and his ongoing efforts to resolve his debts.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's decision was 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 establish that the Judge committed harmful error.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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.