A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 24-02174
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 6, 2025 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced financial concerns under Guideline F due to nine delinquent debts totaling approximately $39,800. The Administrative Judge found against the applicant on all allegations, and the appeal was affirmed, with the applicant's arguments deemed insufficient to establish harmful error in the Judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to all allegations of delinquent debts.
- The Judge found that the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate harmful error in the decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2025-01-03
- Answer filed
- Applicant represented himself.
- Hearing held
- 2025-06-09
- Decision date
- 2025-08-06 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Insufficient Evidence to Establish Harmful Error in the Judge's Decision
- Weighing of Evidence in Financial 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
The appeal was filed by the applicant after the Department of Defense denied his security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge did not accurately reflect the mitigating conditions in his case. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
---------------- )
ISCR Case No. 24-02174
)
) 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: August 6, 2025
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 January 3, 2025, 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 June 9, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged nine delinquent debts that totaled approximately $39,800. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations, and the Judge found adversely on all nine. On appeal, Applicant argues that the Judge’s findings “do not accurately reflect the mitigating conditions” in his case and cites to the circumstances that gave rise to his financial difficulties and to his efforts to resolve his debts. Appeal Brief at 1. Fundamentally, Applicant disagrees with how the Judge weighed the evidence in his case, but none of Applicant’s arguments are sufficient to establish the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. Applicant requests reconsideration of his case, but the Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Applicant has not established that the Judge committed harmful error. Our review of the record reflects that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which 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. 24-02174 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board