CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02030 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02030

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/24/2026
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 24-02030) →See the hearing decision (Case 24-02030) →
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 was a military veteran who had served in the U.S. military and was seeking a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the DoD raised security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), citing 11 delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $49,549. The applicant attributed her financial difficulties to various personal circumstances, including being a single mother, supporting a terminally ill father, and experiencing financial hardships during her military service.
The administrative judge found that while the applicant faced challenges beyond her control, she did not provide sufficient evidence of responsible financial management. The judge noted that the applicant had made some payments towards her debts but failed to demonstrate a consistent good-faith effort to resolve all outstanding obligations. The judge ruled against the applicant on eight of the remaining allegations and in favor of three, ultimately denying her national security eligibility.
On appeal, the Board identified errors in the judge's assessment, particularly regarding the consideration of the applicant's overall payment history and her efforts to resolve debts prior to the issuance of the SOR. The Board concluded that the judge had not adequately considered the applicant's circumstances and remanded the case for further review, requiring the judge to reassess whether the applicant had sufficiently mitigated the government's concerns under Guideline F.
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. 24-02030

Feb 24, 2026· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

This case involves a military veteran and single mother whose security clearance was initially denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to $49,549 in delinquent debts. The original judge found against the applicant on eight of eleven alleged delinquent debts, citing Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19.

However, the appeal board determined that the judge had overlooked substantial evidence presented by the applicant regarding her financial situation and efforts to mitigate the debts. The board noted that Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20(b) should have been more thoroughly considered.

Consequently, the case was remanded for reconsideration, meaning the original decision was not upheld, and a new determination is required. Therefore, the verified outcome of the security clearance decision at this stage is "None."

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedMitigating ConditionsThe judge concluded that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that she acted responsibly under her circumstances.

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance adjudication is not a proceeding aimed at collecting an applicant’s debts. Rather, it is a proceeding aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 20, 2024
Answer filedJun 24, 2025
Hearing held—Decided on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 24, 2026Appeal decision remanding the case.

Cite For

Evaluation of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Consideration of Circumstances Beyond an Applicant's Control in Financial Matters
Importance of Pre-sor Debt Resolution Efforts in Mitigation Analysis

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

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant argued that the Judge overlooked significant evidence regarding her debts. The Board found merit in the Applicant's claims and remanded the case for further consideration of the evidence and the Applicant's financial responsibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge failed to consider certain evidence submitted by the Applicant, particularly regarding the largest debt.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge did not adequately consider the Applicant's overall payment history and significant efforts to reduce her debts.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge overlooked evidence of payments made towards a specific debt and incorrectly stated that no corroborating documentation was provided.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge failed to consider the context of the Applicant's ongoing resolution of other debts when evaluating her financial responsibility.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge failed to consider relevant evidence and did not adequately explain the conclusions reached regarding the Applicant's financial situation. The remand allows for a reevaluation of the evidence and the Applicant's efforts to mitigate the security concerns.

Ignored material evidence

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must address the errors identified and determine if the Applicant has sufficiently mitigated the Government’s remaining concerns under Guideline F.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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.