CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-02035 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-02035

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/28/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-02035) →
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 four delinquent debts, which the applicant admitted, while expressing intentions to establish repayment plans following an anticipated inheritance. The applicant successfully resolved one minor debt prior to the hearing, but three significant debts totaling approximately $22,800 remained unresolved.
During the proceedings, the applicant acknowledged the existence of the debts but did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate efforts to address them, such as payments or negotiations with creditors. The administrative judge found that the applicant's claims regarding the inheritance and potential debt resolution were not substantiated by evidence, leading to a lack of confidence in the applicant's ability to manage the outstanding debts. Consequently, the judge ruled against the applicant, affirming the decision to deny national security eligibility based on the unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board upheld this ruling, stating that the judge's conclusions were well-reasoned and supported by the record.
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. 24-02035

Aug 28, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to four delinquent debts totaling approximately $22,800. The applicant admitted to these debts, which raised disqualifying condition F.1.

Prior to the hearing, only one minor debt was resolved. However, the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation demonstrating responsible action or efforts to address the remaining three outstanding debts.

Consequently, the applicant's appeal was denied, and his security clearance was not granted.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 21, 2025
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateAug 28, 2025Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution Efforts
Burden of Proof on Applicant to Demonstrate Financial Responsibility

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant appealed, reiterating his circumstances and providing new evidence regarding his debts. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the original ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious and that the record supported the Judge's findings and conclusions regarding the applicant's financial considerations.

Standard of review applied

No 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.