A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 25-00601
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 24, 2026 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to 14 delinquent debts totaling approximately $113,600. Despite admitting to the debts and providing some evidence of efforts to address them, the applicant failed to mitigate the concerns sufficiently. The appeal was denied as the judges found no harmful error in the original decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to all allegations of delinquent debts.
- The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns.
- The judges found no harmful error in the original decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2025-05-20
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- Applicant requested decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2026-02-24 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns
- Affirmation of Original Decision Without Harmful Error
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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations. The applicant admitted to the debts and requested a decision based on the written record. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the weighing of evidence.
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. 25-00601
)
) 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: February 24, 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 May 20, 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 January 30, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged 14 delinquent debts totaling approximately $113,600. In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations and included documents reflecting his efforts to address the delinquencies through debt relief companies and other measures. Applicant requested that the decision be made on the written record. The Government submitted a file of relevant material (FORM), provided Applicant with a copy of the same, and advised Applicant of his opportunity to submit documents in response. Applicant provided nothing further in response to the FORM, and the Judge found adversely regarding all allegations.
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 on the part of the Judge but instead argues that the Judge should have weighed the evidence differently. None of his arguments, however, are sufficient to establish the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.132.3. To the extent that Applicant is also requesting reconsideration, the Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error or that he should be granted any relief on appeal. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on the 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. 25-00601 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