CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00550 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00550

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/17/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00550) →
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) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) initially cited five delinquent consumer accounts totaling approximately $28,500. The applicant denied all allegations but later admitted to owing approximately $10,000 in federal taxes during a hearing, leading to an amendment of the SOR to include this tax debt.
The administrative judge found in favor of the applicant on one consumer debt but ruled adversely on the remaining four consumer debts and the tax allegation. The applicant's appeal focused on the tax debt, arguing that he had made a good-faith effort to resolve it and that the judge had overlooked key evidence. However, the appeal board found that the judge had adequately considered the evidence presented, including the applicant's payments to the IRS and the determination of the account as currently not collectible due to hardship. The board concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's decision-making process and affirmed the denial of the security clearance, emphasizing that any doubts regarding national security eligibility 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. 24-00550

Nov 17, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. These included delinquent accounts totaling $28,500 and a $10,000 tax debt. The appeal primarily focused on the tax debt, with the applicant attempting to demonstrate a good-faith effort toward its resolution.

However, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate these claims. The judge found that neither the applicant's testimony nor the submitted documents adequately supported his assertions regarding the tax debt. Consequently, the initial denial was affirmed.

The appellate judges concluded that the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the original decision was arbitrary or capricious, leading to the final denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Accounts

Mitigating

F.3rejectedGood Faith Effort to Repay DebtsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a good faith effort to resolve the tax debt.

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 issuedApr 12, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held2025-02-XXEarly February 2025
Second hearing held2025-02-XXLate February 2025
Decision dateNov 17, 2025

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Good Faith Effort to Resolve Tax Debts
Standard for National Security Eligibility Favoring National Security Over Individual Claims

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 argued that the Judge erred in evaluating his tax debt and overlooked evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge erred by failing to find a good-faith effort to resolve the tax debt and overlooked key evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not commit harmful error and that her decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the Judge's weighing of the evidence was arbitrary or capricious.

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
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Allison Marie

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.