A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 24-01632
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 14, 2025 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial concerns. The appeal was based on the applicant's failure to identify specific errors in the initial decision, and the Appeal Board affirmed the denial, emphasizing that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not identify any specific errors made by the judge in the initial decision.
- The Appeal Board stated that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2024-09-27
- Answer filed
- Applicant elected for a decision based on the written record.
- Hearing held
- No hearing was held.
- Decision date
- 2025-07-14 Appeal 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
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.
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. 24-01632
)
) 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: July 14, 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 27, 2024, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant submitted an answer to the SOR in which he elected “a decision based on the administrative (written) record, without a hearing before an Administrative Judge.” A File of Relevant Material (FORM) was prepared. A copy of the FORM was provided to Applicant, and he was given an opportunity to respond to the FORM and submit additional information for consideration in his case. No response was received from Applicant. On May 20, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
On appeal, there is no presumption of error below, and the appealing party must raise claims of error with specificity and identify how the judge committed factual or legal error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. In Applicant’s appeal, he failed to identify any specific error. Instead, he provided documentation of actions he has taken to resolve the allegations. To the extent that he provides new details about his financial status in his appeal, the Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant national security eligibility is sustainable.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-01632 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer Goldstein Jennifer Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board