CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00114 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 24-00114

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/14/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00114) →
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-sixties individual with a background in military service and a bachelor's degree, who had held a security clearance since 2004. The Department of Defense (DoD) denied his security clearance based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), as outlined in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). The SOR detailed multiple allegations of the applicant's failure to timely file federal and state income tax returns and pay associated debts for tax years 2016 through 2021.
The applicant admitted to the allegations in his response to the SOR and during the hearing. He explained that his failure to file was due to having moved multiple times in recent years. Although he filed his overdue tax returns in early 2024, the administrative judge found that these actions were taken only after the applicant became aware of the security concerns regarding his clearance. The judge noted that the applicant's financial issues included significant tax debts and that his payments towards these debts were minimal and lacked a formal payment plan.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the disqualifying conditions were met and that none of the mitigating factors applied. The judge emphasized that the applicant's remedial actions were insufficient and questioned his reliability and judgment, particularly since the actions were taken only after the security clearance was jeopardized. The decision was affirmed by the Appeal Board, which found no harmful error in the judge's analysis or conclusions.
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. 24-00114

Jan 14, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A security clearance for an applicant in his mid-sixties with extensive military service was denied under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed primarily from his failure to file federal and state income tax returns for six consecutive years, from 2016 through 2021.

While the applicant admitted to these allegations and made efforts to address his tax debts, these actions were initiated only after his security clearance was jeopardized. The appeal board noted the lack of a formal payment plan for his outstanding tax obligations as a significant concern.

Despite the application of some mitigating conditions, the board ultimately upheld the denial. The timing of the applicant's remedial actions and the absence of a structured plan for debt resolution were key factors in the decision, leading to the conclusion that he did not sufficiently mitigate the financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(f)raisedFailure to File or Fraudulently Filing Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax Returns or Failure to Pay Federal, State, or Local Income Tax as Required

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not Recent, Infrequent, or IsolatedThe applicant's recent filing of tax returns was only after his security clearance was in jeopardy.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood Faith Efforts to Resolve DebtsThe diversion of his tax refund to pay his tax debt does not constitute good-faith efforts.
AG ¶ 20(g)rejectedThe Applicant Has Made Arrangements with the Appropriate Tax Authority to File or Pay the Amounts OwedThe applicant has not made formal arrangements with tax authorities.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 6, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 4, 2024
Decision dateJan 14, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Timing in Remedial Actions Regarding Financial Issues
Standards for Evaluating Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Security Clearance Cases

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. The applicant challenged the Judge's findings and alleged ineffective assistance of prior counsel. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis of the applicant's financial issues and the application of mitigating factors.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowCharles C. Hale — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserts that the Judge's application of the mitigation and Whole Person criteria was arbitrary and capricious.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that the Judge failed to give appropriate weight to his long history of timely tax filings.
Legal error — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleges ineffective assistance of prior counsel.

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 Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious, and the applicant did not establish 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.