CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01563 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01563

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/12/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01563) →
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 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 four delinquent debts totaling approximately $36,000, which raised security concerns regarding his financial responsibility.
In response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to the allegations but provided explanations and requested a decision based on the written record. He did not submit any additional information after receiving the Government's File of Relevant Material. The administrative judge found that the applicant had a pattern of accruing delinquent debts and had not taken adequate steps to address them, despite having a monthly net remainder of approximately $5,000 after expenses. The applicant argued on appeal that his overall character and military service were not adequately considered, but the judge concluded that his financial issues were significant enough to outweigh these factors.
The administrative judge affirmed the denial of the security clearance, stating that the applicant's repeated failures to address his debts were not mitigated by his work in the defense industry or his personal circumstances. The judge emphasized that the decision was consistent with national security interests, and the applicant had not demonstrated that the judge's conclusions were arbitrary or contrary to law.
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. 24-01563

Aug 12, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to four admitted delinquent debts totaling approximately $36,000. The judge identified a pattern of accruing multiple delinquent debts without making sufficient efforts to resolve them.

Despite the applicant's financial statement showing a monthly net remainder of approximately $5,000, these debts remained unaddressed. The applicant requested a decision based on the written record, admitting to the debts.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate adequate efforts to resolve his financial issues, which were deemed inconsistent with national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

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 issuedNov 5, 2024
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
Hearing heldJul 1, 2025
Decision dateAug 12, 2025

Cite For

Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Evaluations
Standard for National Security Eligibility Decisions

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 did not consider his entire background, including military service. The Board affirmed the decision, finding the Judge's analysis reasonable and supported by evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the entire person was not taken into consideration.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Administrative Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious. The Judge properly considered the Whole-Person Concept in the analysis.

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.