CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-02174 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-02174

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/6/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-02174) →
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 nine delinquent debts totaling approximately $39,800, which raised security concerns regarding the applicant's financial responsibility.
In response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to all allegations regarding the debts. The administrative judge found the applicant's financial situation to be adverse, noting that the applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate mitigating circumstances despite citing efforts to resolve the debts and the circumstances that led to his financial difficulties. The applicant's appeal focused on the judge's assessment of the evidence and the weight given to mitigating factors, but the appeal did not establish that the judge's findings were arbitrary or contrary to law.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, stating that the judge had adequately examined the evidence and provided a satisfactory explanation for the denial of national security eligibility. The Board emphasized that security clearances are granted only when consistent with national security interests, and any doubts regarding personnel eligibility are resolved in favor of national security.
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. 24-02174

Aug 6, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) for an applicant representing himself. The denial stemmed from nine admitted delinquent debts, totaling approximately $39,800, which raised disqualifying condition F.1.

The Administrative Judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to these debts. The applicant's subsequent appeal was affirmed, as the arguments presented were deemed insufficient to establish harmful error in the Judge's initial decision.

Ultimately, the clearance was denied because the applicant admitted to all allegations of delinquent debts, and the Judge's findings were upheld on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy 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 issuedJan 3, 2025
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldJun 9, 2025
Decision dateAug 6, 2025Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge’s findings did not accurately reflect the mitigating conditions in his case.

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. The Board did not find any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decision

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.