Loading case…

ISCR 24-02098: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2025) · CASE

ISCR Case 24-02098denied

Case headnote

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. The applicant argued that the judge erred but did not establish any harmful error. The Board affirmed the decision, finding the judge's conclusions supported by substantial evidence.

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 sustainable on the record.

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

--------------- )

ISCR Case No. 24-02098

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: June 30, 2025

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 11, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On May 12, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant requested a decision based on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On January 30, 2025, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and provided a copy to Applicant, who acknowledged receipt but elected not to respond. The SOR alleged six financial concerns: four delinquent consumer debts that total approximately $23,500, a 2009 Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and a 2021 Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on two consumer debts but adversely on the remaining two delinquent debts and on both bankruptcies. The Judge acknowledged that Applicant had

experienced unforeseen personal and professional events that contributed to her financial issues, but he found that Applicant failed to show that she acted responsibly under the circumstances. In particular, he concluded that Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to show that she was in a payment plan or attempted to establish plans for the two remaining alleged debts, which total approximately $21,100. The Judge highlighted that Applicant’s second bankruptcy filing was in 2021 and that over $107,000 was discharged in unsecured obligations before concluding: “Insufficient time has elapsed since her most recent discharge of her debts in bankruptcy in September 2021 to establish a track record of financial stability, living within her means, and satisfying her debts.” Decision at 5. 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. On appeal, Applicant restates the explanations that she provided in her Answer to the SOR and provides information about her professional duties and accomplishments in her current employment. To the extent that the documents submitted constitute new evidence, the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant has failed to establish any harmful error below. The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “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). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b).

ORDER

The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-02098 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board