CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-02049 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-02049

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/14/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-02049) →
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) outlined allegations including nine consumer debts exceeding $25,000, a wage garnishment for child support arrears, and failure to file state and federal income tax returns for the tax years 2022 and 2023.
During the hearing, the applicant admitted to the consumer debts and child support issues but claimed to have taken steps to address them, including engaging a credit counseling service. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant did not sufficiently mitigate the concerns regarding the unfiled tax returns, noting that the applicant had made repeated promises to resolve these issues but had not done so by the time of the hearing.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the failure to file tax returns indicated a lack of compliance with governmental rules, which is critical for maintaining national security eligibility. The judge's decision was affirmed on appeal, as the Appeal Board found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious reasoning in the judge's analysis, and the applicant did not meet the burden of persuasion regarding the tax filing issues.
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. 24-02049

Jul 14, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, primarily due to significant consumer debts and a failure to file state and federal income tax returns for 2022 and 2023. The applicant represented himself throughout the process.

While the judge found that some of the applicant's consumer debts were mitigated under conditions AG ¶ 21(a), AG ¶ 21(c), and AG ¶ 21(d), the non-compliance with tax obligations remained a critical disqualifying condition, specifically AG ¶ 20. The judge determined that the applicant did not meet the burden of persuasion regarding his tax filings.

Consequently, the applicant's failure to file tax returns for two consecutive years was deemed a substantial security concern. The denial of the security clearance was upheld on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe judge found that the applicant mitigated concerns related to consumer debts.
AG ¶ 21(c)appliedThe Individual Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant engaged a credit counseling service.
AG ¶ 21(d)appliedThe Individual Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant was making payments on debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“Voluntary compliance with such rules and systems is essential for protecting classified information.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-04437 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 15, 2016)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 28, 2025
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 2, 2025
Decision dateJul 14, 2025Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Failure to File Tax Returns as a Significant Concern Under Guideline F
Mitigating Factors Related to Financial Issues
Importance of Voluntary Compliance with Governmental Rules for 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, specifically the failure to file state and federal income tax returns. The Applicant argued that the Judge did not adequately weigh his testimony or consider mitigating factors. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCaroline E. Heintzelman — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that the Judge failed to give adequate weight to his testimony.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge did not properly evaluate the Whole-Person Concept.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge failed to consider all appropriate mitigating factors.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge applied the appropriate mitigating factors and conducted a robust Whole-Person analysis, resolving most allegations in Applicant's favor. The Board concluded that the Judge's decision was sustainable based on the record, particularly regarding the failure to file tax returns, which raised concerns about compliance with governmental rules.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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.