CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01523 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01523

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/3/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01523) →
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) indicated that the applicant had three delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $24,000, which he admitted. The applicant attributed his financial difficulties to underemployment starting in 2016 and chose to stop repaying his debts when he could not afford the minimum payments, believing the debts would soon be uncollectible due to the statute of limitations.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had not taken steps to address his delinquent debts for nearly a decade, which raised concerns about his reliability and judgment. The judge noted that the applicant prioritized future financial goals over repaying past creditors. The applicant's appeal did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's decision, nor did it provide evidence of proposed additional security measures that could mitigate the financial issues. Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's ruling, concluding that the decision was consistent with national security interests and adequately supported by the record.
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. 24-01523

Sep 3, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to three delinquent debts totaling approximately $24,000. These debts arose from a period of underemployment, and the applicant admitted to their existence.

The denial was based on several disqualifying conditions, including the applicant's failure to attempt repayment of these debts. Instead, the applicant ignored the obligations until they became unenforceable under the statute of limitations. This decision to prioritize future financial goals over past creditors raised concerns about his reliability and judgment.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied because the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate these financial issues. The judges emphasized that financial responsibility is a critical factor in determining eligibility for national security positions.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

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 issuedSep 24, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 17, 2025
Decision dateSep 3, 2025

Cite For

Importance of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Ignoring Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Burden of Proof on the Applicant in Appeal Cases

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 admitted to delinquent debts and argued for conditional eligibility. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the application of the guidelines.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBryan J. Olmos — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's application of AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(b) was erroneous.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious and that the record supported the findings and conclusions made by the Judge.

Standard of review applied

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

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.