CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00570 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00570

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/23/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
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 was a federal contractor in his early 40s who sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that he had 15 delinquent consumer accounts, two federal tax liens, and was delinquent on state taxes. The applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR.
During the proceedings, the applicant acknowledged his financial difficulties, attributing them to unemployment and the need to support family members. He claimed to have made significant progress in resolving his debts, providing documentation of payments made and settlements reached. However, the administrative judge found that while the applicant had made some payments, his financial decisions and the timing of his debt resolution efforts raised concerns about his judgment and reliability. The judge noted that the applicant's actions appeared to be reactive rather than proactive, triggered by the issuance of the SOR.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, affirming the denial of his security clearance. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial management and the circumstances surrounding his debts did not demonstrate the necessary reliability and trustworthiness required for a security clearance. The Appeal Board upheld this decision, stating that the judge had adequately considered the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the ruling.
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. 24-00570

Jul 23, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple debts and tax liens. The appeal board upheld this denial, citing the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of responsible financial management and reliability.

The applicant admitted to being indebted on several accounts and having outstanding tax liens, which were identified as disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 20. The board determined that the evidence presented did not adequately demonstrate a commitment to resolving these financial issues or a pattern of responsible financial behavior.

Ultimately, the appeal board concluded that the applicant had not mitigated the financial concerns to a degree that would warrant granting a security clearance. The denial was based on the persistent financial issues and the lack of compelling evidence to demonstrate a change in financial management practices.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

Decision DateJul 23, 2025

Cite For

Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Financial Management
Evaluation of Financial History in Security Clearance 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 under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that he had made significant progress in resolving his debts. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis of the Applicant's financial situation and judgment.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEric H. Borgstrom — denied the clearance

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 erred in his analysis of the timing of his debt-resolution efforts.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's conclusions regarding his financial judgment were arbitrary and capricious.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant alleged no specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge properly considered all relevant evidence and articulated satisfactory explanations for his conclusions. The Board determined that the Applicant's arguments did not demonstrate harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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.