CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02140 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02140

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/15/2026
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-02140) →
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) indicated that the applicant had a delinquent debt totaling approximately $24,000, which raised questions about his financial responsibility and reliability.
In response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to the debt but claimed it would "fall off" his credit report in August 2025. He chose to have his case decided on the written record and submitted additional information, including a new credit report. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant's approach to the debt did not demonstrate a proactive effort to resolve the issue, which negatively impacted his reliability and judgment.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, stating that merely waiting for the debt to expire from the credit report was not a mitigating factor. The judge concluded that the applicant's failure to address the delinquent debt raised ongoing concerns about his trustworthiness. The Appeal Board affirmed the judge's decision, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the original ruling and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
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. 24-02140

Jan 15, 2026· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a delinquent debt of approximately $24,000. The applicant admitted to the debt but argued it would soon be removed from his credit report.

However, the judges did not consider this a mitigating factor. The applicant's failure to resolve the outstanding debt raised significant concerns regarding his reliability and judgment.

Ultimately, no mitigating conditions were found, and the denial of the security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedDec 27, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Decision on the written record
Decision dateJan 15, 2026Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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.