CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01671 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01671

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/6/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01671) →
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). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined five financial issues, including the applicant's failure to file federal and state income tax returns for 2019 and three delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $30,800. The applicant admitted to these allegations and provided documentation of efforts to resolve the debts, opting for a decision based on the written record rather than a hearing.
The administrative judge acknowledged the applicant's subsequent resolution of the debts and the filing of tax returns but ultimately ruled against the applicant. The judge's decision was primarily based on the timing of the applicant's mitigation efforts, which occurred after the issuance of the SOR. On appeal, the applicant did not claim any harmful error by the judge but expressed regret over choosing a written decision without legal representation, citing personal circumstances that affected his decision-making. The Appeal Board found that the applicant had been adequately informed of his rights and responsibilities and concluded that he was not denied due process. Consequently, the decision of the administrative judge was affirmed.
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. 24-01671

Aug 6, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial irresponsibility. Disqualifying conditions F1, F2, F3, F4, and F5 were raised, stemming from a failure to file tax returns and delinquent debts totaling approximately $30,800.

While the applicant admitted to these allegations and demonstrated some efforts to resolve the debts, the judge found that these mitigating actions, specifically F2 and F3, largely occurred after the Statement of Reasons (SOR) was issued. The timing of these efforts was a significant factor in the decision.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied because the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the initial decision, which concluded that the post-SOR mitigation efforts were insufficient to overcome the established financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations
F2raisedFinancial Considerations
F3raisedFinancial Considerations
F4raisedFinancial Considerations
F5raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

F2rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge acknowledged the applicant's efforts to resolve debts but found them insufficient due to timing.
F3rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's post-SOR actions were not considered timely enough to mitigate the concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“Applicants are entitled to receive their full measure of due process under Executive Order 10865 and the Directive, but they are not entitled to be relieved of the consequences of decisions and choices they make on how to proceed with their case simply because they are not satisfied with the results.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 11, 2024
Answer filedOct 27, 2024Applicant elected a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateAug 6, 2025Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Timing of Mitigation Efforts Under Guideline F
Self-representation and Due Process Considerations
Impact of Failure to File Tax Returns on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge but expressed regret over his decision to elect for a written record instead of a hearing. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no due process violation and that the Applicant had sufficient notice of his rights.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — 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 that the Judge committed any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that Applicant was not denied due process and that the Judge's decision was sustainable based on the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

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.