CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00854 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00854

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/13/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00854) →
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) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had failed to timely file his 2018 federal tax return and had outstanding debts, including a federal tax balance of approximately $11,000 and a state tax balance of at least $1,000. The applicant admitted to these concerns but claimed to have resolved some debts and established a payment plan with the IRS.
The administrative judge found that while the applicant had made some progress, such as filing the 2018 tax return and addressing the auto loan, he had not provided sufficient documentation to support his claims regarding the state tax balance and the federal tax debt. The judge noted that the applicant's federal tax debt had increased over time and that he had a history of inconsistent payments on previous installment agreements. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate a meaningful financial track record necessary to mitigate the security concerns.
On appeal, the decision was affirmed, with the Appeal Board agreeing that the judge's findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence. The board emphasized that national security interests must take precedence, and any doubts regarding an applicant's eligibility should be resolved in favor of national security.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · For Applicant
- 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. 24-00854

Aug 13, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a U.S. security clearance primarily under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), with Guideline B (Foreign Influence) also cited. The denial stemmed from significant financial issues, including a failure to file a federal tax return for 2018 and substantial delinquent federal and state tax balances.

Despite the applicant's assertions of having resolved some debts and established a payment plan with the IRS, these claims lacked sufficient supporting documentation. The appeal board noted a history of inconsistent payments and increasing tax debt, which undermined the applicant's claims of a meaningful financial track record.

Consequently, the appeal board upheld the denial, citing a lack of a meaningful financial track record and insufficient documentation to substantiate the applicant's claims regarding debt resolution. The disqualifying condition raised was AG ¶ 20.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“it cannot be said that he has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”
— ISCR Case No. 01-21386 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 11, 2003)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 22, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 14, 2025
Decision dateAug 13, 2025Appeal decision

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Maintaining a Meaningful Financial Track Record
Insufficient Documentation Can Undermine Claims of Debt Resolution

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 and foreign influence. The Applicant challenged the Judge's findings regarding outstanding tax debts and the status of an auto loan. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the assessment of the Applicant's financial situation.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in finding that the state tax balance remains outstanding.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that the Judge's finding regarding the federal tax balance is incorrect.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claims that the auto loan balance is less than alleged in the SOR.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were reasonable and supported by the record, and that the Applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's conclusions were arbitrary or capricious. The Judge properly weighed the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.

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.