CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-02098 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-02098

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/30/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-02098) →
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) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined six financial issues, including four delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $23,500 and two Chapter 7 bankruptcies filed in 2009 and 2021.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had favorable circumstances regarding two of the consumer debts but adverse findings on the remaining debts and both bankruptcies. Although the applicant experienced unforeseen personal and professional challenges contributing to her financial difficulties, the judge determined that she did not demonstrate responsible financial behavior. Specifically, the applicant failed to provide evidence of payment plans for the two remaining debts, which amounted to about $21,100. The judge noted that the applicant's most recent bankruptcy discharge occurred in September 2021, indicating insufficient time to establish financial stability.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's national security eligibility, affirming that the decision was consistent with national security interests. The Appeal Board upheld this ruling, stating that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the initial decision and that the judge had adequately considered the evidence presented.
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. 24-02098

Jun 30, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial instability. The applicant had multiple bankruptcies and delinquent debts totaling approximately $23,500, raising disqualifying conditions F.1, F.2, and F.3.

While mitigating conditions F.3 and F.4 were considered, the Administrative Judge found insufficient evidence of responsible financial management. The applicant failed to demonstrate a consistent effort to manage her finances, despite personal and professional challenges. Furthermore, insufficient time had passed since her most recent bankruptcy discharge to establish a reliable track record of financial stability, and she did not provide evidence of being in payment plans for her remaining debts.

The appeal affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's financial history did not meet the standard required for a security clearance consistent with national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Debts
F.1raisedFinancial Irresponsibility

Mitigating

F.4rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge acknowledged personal and professional events but found insufficient evidence of responsible management.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Has Otherwise Resolved DebtsThe applicant did not show evidence of being in a payment plan or making efforts to resolve the debts.

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 issuedDec 11, 2024
Answer filedJan 30, 2025Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateJun 30, 2025Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Recent Bankruptcy on Security Clearance Eligibility
Burden of Proof on the Applicant in Appeal Cases

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 under Guideline F. The applicant appealed the decision, restating previous explanations and providing additional information. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCharles C. Hale — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged no specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was supported by substantial evidence.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
Jennifer I. 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.