CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01532 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01532

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/28/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01532) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
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 E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had filed for bankruptcy five times, with multiple dismissals for failure to make payments, and had accumulated new delinquent debts totaling approximately $20,500. The applicant did not disclose these financial issues on his 2023 security clearance application and only admitted to them during a background interview.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant denied liability for two specific debts, claiming one was fraudulent and the other belonged to his father. He admitted to the remaining debts and bankruptcies, providing explanations. The administrative judge found in favor of the applicant regarding a minor judgment but ruled adversely on the other financial allegations, citing the applicant's extensive history of bankruptcy and additional delinquent debts. On appeal, the applicant contested the judge's finding regarding one debt but the appeal board concluded that the judge's overall decision was supported by sufficient evidence and articulated reasoning, affirming the denial of the security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against 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. ISCR Case No. 24-01532

Aug 28, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance primarily due to significant financial issues and personal conduct concerns under DOHA Guidelines E and F. The appeal board affirmed this denial.

Disqualifying conditions included the applicant filing for bankruptcy five times, with several dismissals due to non-payment. Since his last bankruptcy discharge in 2018, the applicant accumulated four new delinquent debts totaling approximately $20,500. Furthermore, the applicant failed to disclose these financial concerns on his security clearance application, only revealing them when confronted during his background interview.

Despite the favorable resolution of one minor debt, the applicant's extensive history of financial instability and lack of candor regarding these issues were deemed substantial security concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 14raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedDec 13, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 8, 2025
Decision dateAug 28, 2025

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Multiple Bankruptcies Under Guideline F
Significant Financial Issues as a Basis for Security Clearance Denial
Importance of Full Disclosure in Security Clearance Applications

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 issues and personal conduct. The Applicant challenged the Judge's adverse finding regarding a specific debt, claiming he was only an authorized user. The Board found the Judge erred but deemed the error harmless due to the Applicant's significant financial history. The appeal was ultimately affirmed.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge erred in resolving the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 2.h adversely, as Applicant was only an authorized user on the account.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's conclusions were arbitrary and capricious regarding his financial circumstances.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The erroneous finding regarding SOR ¶ 2.h was deemed harmless in light of the overall unfavorable findings against the Applicant.

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.