CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00562 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 25-00562

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/12/2026
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 25-00562) →
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 man in his mid-40s who had been employed at a shipyard and had previously worked overseas. He sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) as outlined in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the Department of Defense. The SOR detailed multiple allegations, including failure to timely file federal income tax returns for several years, significant tax debts exceeding $52,000, and unresolved debts totaling approximately $5,300.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had a history of late tax filings and substantial tax liabilities, which he attributed to his ex-wife's management of their finances during their marriage. The applicant admitted to some financial difficulties but claimed he was working to resolve his debts and intended to return to overseas work to improve his financial situation. However, he did not provide evidence of a payment plan for his tax debts or demonstrate responsible financial conduct.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, affirming the decision to deny his security clearance. The judge concluded that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the financial concerns raised, noting that his past financial behavior and lack of a clear plan to address his debts posed a risk to national security. The appeal was denied, with the judge's findings deemed reasonable and supported by the evidence presented.
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. 25-00562

Feb 12, 2026· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance application was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) for an individual in their mid-40s with five minor children. The denial stemmed from significant unresolved financial issues, specifically the failure to timely file federal income tax returns for 2021-2023 and substantial tax debts exceeding $52,000.

The applicant did not establish a payment plan with the IRS or provide sufficient evidence demonstrating resolution of these financial concerns. The judge found the applicant's explanations regarding financial hardships and reliance on his ex-wife to be inadequate in mitigating the issues.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied because the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to address the financial concerns, underscoring the importance of financial responsibility for national security eligibility. The decision highlighted Disqualifying Condition F.1.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 4, 2025
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateFeb 12, 2026

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Timely Tax Filings in Security Clearance Determinations
Impact of Unresolved Financial Issues on National Security Eligibility

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 Administrative Judge denied his application for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge made erroneous factual findings and failed to apply the Whole-Person Concept. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the Judge's conclusions were sustainable.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoss D. Hyams — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge made erroneous factual findings and failed to apply the Whole-Person Concept.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious. The Judge properly weighed the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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.