CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01632 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01632

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/14/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01632) →
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 related to financial considerations, specifically under Guideline F of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued on September 27, 2024, outlined the basis for the denial, citing the applicant's financial issues as a potential risk to national security.
In response to the SOR, the applicant chose to proceed without a hearing and submitted an answer. However, he did not provide any additional information or documentation after the preparation of the File of Relevant Material (FORM). The administrative judge, Marc E. Curry, ultimately ruled against the applicant on May 20, 2025, citing the lack of sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns raised in the SOR.
On appeal, the applicant did not identify any specific errors made by the judge but instead submitted documentation of actions taken to address his financial issues. The Appeal Board noted that it could not consider new evidence and that the applicant had not alleged any harmful error in the original decision. Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, maintaining the denial of national security eligibility.
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. 24-01632

Jul 14, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20.

The applicant appealed the denial, but the Appeal Board affirmed the original decision. The Board's reasoning for upholding the denial was twofold: the applicant failed to identify any specific errors in the judge's initial decision, and the Board could not consider new evidence presented during the appeal process.

Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“In an appeal, the appealing party must raise claims of error with specificity and identify how the judge committed factual or legal error.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.32.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 27, 2024
Answer filed—Applicant elected for a decision based on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held.
Decision dateJul 14, 2025Appeal decision affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Specific Error Claims in Appeal
Limitations on New Evidence Consideration During Appeal
Requirements for Appealing a Security Clearance Decision Under Guideline F

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 an Applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant appealed the decision but did not identify any specific errors made by the Administrative Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, as there were no harmful errors alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant failed to identify any specific harmful error in the appeal.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error, and the Board is limited to reviewing only those claims of error.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
Jennifer Goldstein

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.