Loading case…

ISCR 24-01632: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2025) · CASE

ISCR Case 24-01632denied

Case headnote

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 a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant, representing himself, did not identify any specific errors in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, as no harmful error was 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 found that the Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error, and therefore, the Administrative Judge's decision was sustainable.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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