CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01008 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01008

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/23/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01008) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
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), which was denied based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined eight delinquent consumer and auto debts, totaling approximately $55,000, which the applicant admitted but sought to explain, citing financial difficulties stemming from a divorce in 2018.
The administrative judge found that while the applicant had established payment plans for two minor debts, he failed to maintain contact with several creditors regarding the remaining six accounts. The judge noted that the applicant's largest debt, an auto loan charged off for about $34,600, remained unresolved, as the applicant did not contact the creditor after receiving the SOR, believing the debt was written off. The applicant's claims regarding the debt's status were unsupported by evidence, as credit reports continued to reflect the delinquency.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the financial issues raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. The judge's findings were deemed reasonable and supported by the evidence, leading to the affirmation of the denial of the applicant's security clearance.
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. 24-01008

Apr 23, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

The applicant's security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $55,000, largely stemming from a divorce. The applicant, representing himself, faced disqualifying conditions F.2 and F.3, which were also considered as potential mitigating factors.

However, the judges found insufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns. The applicant failed to establish payment plans for most debts and did not maintain contact with creditors. Crucially, his assertion that the largest debt, an auto loan, had been written off was unsupported by evidence and continued to appear on credit reports.

Ultimately, the judges concluded that the applicant's financial situation presented unmitigated questions regarding his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Debts

Mitigating

F.3rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Applicant's ControlThe judges found that the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient progress in resolving his debts.
F.2appliedThe Applicant Has Made Efforts to Pay Off Some DebtsThe applicant established payment plans for two minor debts.

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 issuedAug 6, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateApr 23, 2025Appeal decision

Cite For

Financial Reliability Concerns Under Guideline F
Impact of Divorce on Financial Obligations
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Delinquent Debts

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 concerned the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant challenged the Judge's adverse finding regarding a significant auto loan debt. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the assessment of the applicant's financial situation and the implications for national security.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — 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 failed to properly consider evidence regarding the largest debt.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's conclusions were arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, and that the conclusions drawn were not 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
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.