A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 24-02140
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 15, 2026 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to a delinquent debt of approximately $24,000. Despite admitting the debt and claiming it would soon fall off his credit report, the judges found no mitigating conditions and affirmed the denial, citing concerns about the applicant's reliability and judgment.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to a delinquent debt of approximately $24,000.
- The applicant's claim that the debt would fall off his credit report was not considered a mitigating factor.
- The applicant's failure to resolve the debt raised concerns about his reliability and judgment.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“Merely waiting for a debt to drop off a credit report due to the passage of time is not a factor in an applicant’s favor.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2024-12-27
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- Decision on the written record
- Decision date
- 2026-01-15 Appeal decision affirmed
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Delinquent Debt Under Guideline F
- Lack of Mitigating Conditions When Debt Is Not Resolved
- Applicant's Burden to Demonstrate Error on Appeal
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 involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant admitted to a delinquent debt and requested a review of his records without alleging any specific error. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not raise any harmful error.
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. 24-02140
)
) 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: January 15, 2026
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 27, 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 December 15, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Candace Le’i Garcia denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Discussion
The SOR alleged one delinquent debt totaling approximately $24,000. In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the debt. He also stated that the account will “fall off” his credit report in August 2025. Applicant elected a decision on the written record and subsequently submitted additional information in response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material. The Judge found adversely on the sole allegation. In her analysis of the mitigating conditions she noted, “Merely waiting for a debt to drop off a credit report due to the passage of time is not a factor in an applicant’s favor.” Decision at 5. She concluded that none of the
mitigating conditions were established because Applicant’s unwillingness to resolve his delinquent debt continued to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. 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 makes no assertion of error but rather requests “another audit” of his records. He also attached a new credit report from January 2026 that does not include the alleged SOR debt. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant national security eligibility is sustainable.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-02140 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