CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00843 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 24-00843

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/10/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
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) indicated that the applicant had three delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $45,000, which he attributed to a debt reduction scam that maxed out his credit cards.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the debts and explained that he had contacted the creditor to establish a payment plan after the debt reduction company ceased communication. He provided documentation of the payment plans but did not submit evidence of actual payments made. The administrative judge found that the applicant's claims of payment without proper documentation did not demonstrate a meaningful financial track record or a good-faith effort to resolve the debts.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that his recent efforts and minimal documentation were insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns raised. The judge emphasized that without a track record of timely payments, the applicant could not be considered to have initiated a good-faith effort to repay his creditors. The decision was affirmed by the Appeal Board, which found that the judge's conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.
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. 24-00843

Feb 10, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

An applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to three delinquent debts totaling approximately $45,000. The applicant attributed these debts to a debt reduction scam and claimed to have established payment plans.

However, the judges found insufficient evidence of actual payments made towards these debts. While the applicant asserted payments were being made, critical documentation to substantiate these claims was not provided. This lack of verifiable payment history was a primary factor in the decision.

Consequently, the applicant failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve the financial issues, leading to the application of Disqualifying Condition F.3 and insufficient application of Mitigating Condition F.20(d). The denial of the security clearance was affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.20(d)rejectedThe Individual Initiated and Adhered to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant's recent efforts and minimal documentation were insufficient to establish a meaningful financial track record.

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 issuedJun 6, 2024
Answer filedJun 11, 2024
Hearing heldDec 12, 2024
Decision dateFeb 10, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Payments as a Basis for Denial Under Guideline F
Rejection of Mitigating Condition Due to Lack of Documentation
Affirmation of Denial Based on National Security Interests

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 failed to consider all evidence and apply mitigating factors. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in failing to consider all evidence and properly apply mitigating conditions.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence, weighed the disqualifying and mitigating evidence, and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The record supported the Judge's findings and conclusions.

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
James B. Norman
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.