CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-00601 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-00601

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/24/2026
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 25-00601) →
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) outlined 14 delinquent debts totaling approximately $113,600, which raised significant security concerns regarding the applicant's financial responsibility.
In response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to all allegations and provided documentation of efforts to address the debts through debt relief companies. The applicant opted for a decision based on the written record and did not submit any further evidence after the Government provided a file of relevant material. The administrative judge found the applicant's financial issues to be unresolved and detrimental to national security eligibility.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, affirming the denial of the security clearance. The judge noted that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the initial decision and that the evidence presented did not sufficiently mitigate the financial concerns. The ruling emphasized that national security interests take precedence, and any doubts regarding personnel eligibility must be resolved in favor of national security. The decision was subsequently affirmed by the Appeal Board.
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. ISCR Case No. 25-00601

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

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 14 delinquent debts totaling approximately $113,600. The applicant admitted to all allegations regarding these debts, which raised disqualifying condition F.1.

Despite acknowledging the debts and presenting some evidence of efforts to resolve them, the applicant did not provide sufficient mitigating evidence to overcome the financial concerns. The original decision to deny the clearance was based on these unmitigated issues.

Upon appeal, the judges found no harmful error in the initial decision. Consequently, the appeal was denied, and the security clearance remained denied.

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 issuedMay 20, 2025
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested decision on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 24, 2026Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCharles C. Hale — 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 on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and concluded that the evidence was weighed appropriately.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionHarmful-error gatekeeper

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.