CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01994 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01994

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/12/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01994) →
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 but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had seven delinquent debts totaling approximately $62,000, which he attributed to financial difficulties stemming from a divorce in 2021. The applicant admitted to the debts but did not begin addressing them until after receiving the SOR in late 2024.
The administrative judge found that the applicant's financial decisions, including overspending and prioritizing child support payments over debt resolution, raised concerns about his judgment and reliability. Although the applicant argued that his post-SOR efforts to resolve the debts should be considered mitigating, the judge concluded that these efforts were insufficient to establish a meaningful financial track record. The judge noted that the debts were largely a result of the applicant's own financial mismanagement, including purchasing expensive vehicles and following poor financial advice. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant, stating that the unresolved debts continued to cast doubt on his eligibility for a security clearance, and the decision was affirmed on appeal.
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. 24-01994

Aug 12, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to seven delinquent debts totaling approximately $62,000. These debts were attributed to financial strain following a divorce.

While the applicant made some post-Statement of Reasons (SOR) efforts to address his financial issues, the judge found these efforts insufficient to mitigate concerns regarding his judgment and reliability. Specifically, the timing of the debt resolution raised doubts about the applicant's trustworthiness, as he had only recently begun a good-faith effort to address the largely unresolved debts.

The judge concluded that the applicant's post-SOR actions did not establish a meaningful financial track record. Consequently, the appeal was denied, upholding the initial denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedMitigating Condition 20(b)The judge found that the debts originated from overspending and living beyond means, not solely from circumstances beyond the applicant's control.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedMitigating Condition 20(d)The judge concluded that the applicant's post-SOR efforts did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 11, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 14, 2025
Decision dateAug 12, 2025

Cite For

Insufficient Post-sor Efforts to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Timing in Debt Resolution for Trustworthiness Assessments
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Based on Personal Financial Decisions

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 argued that the Judge misapplied mitigating conditions and the Whole-Person Concept. The Board affirmed the decision, finding the Judge's conclusions reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to properly apply the mitigating conditions and Whole-Person Concept.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's analysis under the Whole-Person Concept was arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were reasonable and supported by the record, and that the Judge properly weighed the disqualifying and mitigating evidence.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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.