Loading case…

ISCR 24-02174: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2025) · CASE

ISCR Case 24-02174denied

Case headnote

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 concerned the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant argued that the Judge did not accurately reflect mitigating conditions and disagreed with the evidence's weight. The 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 do 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 concluded that Applicant did not establish 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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

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

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 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