CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01656 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 20-01656

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/31/2022
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 20-01656) →
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a mid-forties single individual with a master's degree and a real estate license, who owned two businesses. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), alleging approximately $98,000 in delinquent debt across multiple accounts, including child support arrears and a failure to file a 2017 federal tax return. The applicant admitted most allegations but disputed two medical accounts and claimed financial difficulties stemmed from a period of unemployment in 2017.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the financial concerns. Although he settled several debts, he failed to address the child support arrearage, which remained unresolved despite his significant income. The judge noted inconsistencies in the applicant's statements regarding his employment and financial situation, which raised doubts about his trustworthiness. The applicant's claims of legal advice against making payments on the arrearage were not substantiated with evidence. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant did not meet the burden of proof to mitigate the financial issues, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
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. 20-01656

Mar 31, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied for an applicant, a single father in his mid-forties with a master's degree and two businesses, primarily under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from approximately $98,000 in delinquent debt and the failure to file a 2017 tax return.

While the applicant resolved most of his outstanding debts, significant concerns remained regarding over $44,000 in unresolved child support arrears. The applicant did not demonstrate sufficient good faith efforts to address these financial issues, particularly the child support payments.

Furthermore, the applicant's inconsistent statements about his employment and overall financial situation raised doubts about his trustworthiness. Despite the application of mitigating conditions F.4 and F.6, the presence of disqualifying conditions F.2 and F.3, coupled with the unresolved child support and lack of good faith, led to the denial being affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

F.4rejectedThe Individual Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant did not demonstrate good faith efforts to address child support arrears.
F.6rejectedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the DebtThe applicant's disputes regarding some debts were not sufficient to mitigate the overall financial concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 27, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateMar 31, 2022Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Unresolved Child Support Arrears as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Good Faith Efforts to Mitigate Financial Issues
The Importance of Consistent and Truthful Financial Disclosures in Security Clearance Evaluations

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 concerns under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider all evidence, misapplied mitigating factors, and exhibited bias. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to consider all the evidence.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to properly consider or apply the mitigating factors.
Judge bias or partiality — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge was biased against Applicant.

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 were supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge did not commit harmful error in her analysis of the evidence and application of the law. The Board also determined that the Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious.

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

James F. Duffy — Chair
James E. Moody
Moira Modzelewski

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.