A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 24-01603
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 20, 2025 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced financial concerns under Guideline F due to four delinquent debts totaling approximately $48,000. Although he attributed the debts to job loss during the pandemic, the judge found insufficient evidence of responsible action taken to resolve the debts, resulting in a denial of the security clearance that was affirmed on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to having four delinquent debts totaling approximately $48,000.
- The judge found no evidence that the applicant took responsible action to resolve the debts.
- The applicant did not respond to the Government's File of Relevant Material.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2024-09-24
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2025-09-10
- Decision date
- 2025-11-20 Decision affirmed on appeal.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
- Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Action Regarding Debts
- Burden of Proof on the Appealing Party in Security Clearance 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
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant admitted to the debts but did not provide any specific claims of error on appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
---------- )
ISCR Case No. 24-01603
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: November 20, 2025
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 24, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On September 10, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Gatha LaFaye denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Discussion
The SOR alleged that Applicant carried four delinquent debts totaling approximately $48,000. In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations, explaining that his debts became delinquent after he lost his job in the pandemic, and he requested that his case be decided based on the written record. Applicant was provided a complete copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on March 21, 2025, and was notified of his ability to respond with
objections or additional information for the Judge to consider. Applicant did not respond to the FORM. The Judge acknowledged that Applicant “may have suffered a financial setback for a time” due to his job loss in June 2020, but she went on to note that “he was hired by another company shortly after being laid off, and he has been gainfully employed in his current position since 2023.” Decision at 6. Finding “no indication that Applicant has acted responsibly, or that he has taken meaningful steps to resolve the delinquent debts alleged in the SOR,” the Judge held adversely on all allegations. Id. There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity. Directive ¶ E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of error on the part of the Judge, but rather requests another opportunity to explain his debts. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is affirmed.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-01603 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board