CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01603 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01603

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/20/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01603) →
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 four delinquent debts totaling approximately $48,000, which became problematic after he lost his job during the pandemic.
In response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to the allegations, attributing his financial difficulties to job loss in June 2020. He requested a decision based on the written record and did not provide any further information after being given access to the Government’s File of Relevant Material. Although the administrative judge acknowledged the applicant's financial setback, she noted that he had been employed since 2023 and found no evidence of responsible actions taken to address the delinquent debts.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, stating that there was insufficient indication of responsible behavior or meaningful steps taken to resolve the debts. The decision was affirmed by the Appeal Board, which noted that the applicant did not assert any specific errors in the judge's ruling and was not permitted to introduce new evidence on appeal.
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. 24-01603

Nov 20, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to four delinquent debts totaling approximately $48,000. The applicant, representing himself, admitted to these debts.

While the applicant attributed the financial difficulties to job loss during the pandemic, the judge found no evidence that he had taken responsible action to resolve the outstanding debts. Furthermore, the applicant failed to respond to the Government's File of Relevant Material, which contributed to the denial.

Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant's financial issues, specifically the unresolved delinquent debts and lack of demonstrated effort to address them, presented a disqualifying condition under AG ¶ 19. The denial of the security clearance was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 24, 2024
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
Hearing heldSep 10, 2025
Decision dateNov 20, 2025Decision 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGatha LaFaye — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any specific harmful error on appeal.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision, as the Applicant did not raise any specific claims of error and the Judge's findings were supported by the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

No 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.