CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01982 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01982

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/23/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01982) →
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), which was denied based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined four delinquent debts totaling approximately $31,500, which raised security concerns regarding the applicant's financial responsibility.
During the proceedings, the administrative judge found that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the financial issues presented in the SOR. The applicant did not contest the allegations but requested reconsideration and the opportunity to retain his job. The judge noted that the applicant's appeal did not assert any specific errors in the initial ruling, and the burden of proof remained with the applicant to demonstrate harmful error.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, stating that the applicant's request for reconsideration and the impact of the unfavorable determination on his career were not relevant to the assessment of his security suitability. The ruling emphasized that the applicant failed to raise any claims of error, leading to the conclusion that the denial of national security eligibility was justified.
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. 24-01982

Jul 23, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $31,500 in delinquent debts. The Administrative Judge affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's failure to raise any claims of harmful error during the appeal process.

The denial was specifically based on Disqualifying Condition F.1, which addresses an individual's inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. The applicant's substantial delinquent debt was the primary concern.

Ultimately, the applicant's appeal did not present any arguments challenging the initial decision, leading to the affirmation of the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial 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 issuedDec 27, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 18, 2025
Decision dateJul 23, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Burden of Proof on the Appealing Party to Raise Claims of Harmful Error
No Presumption of Error in Appeal Process

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 did not assert any specific harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision and requested reconsideration instead. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not assert any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The applicant did not raise any claims of harmful error, and the Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision based on the absence of such claims.

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.