CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01510 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 21-01510

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/7/2022
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 21-01510) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2014 and had 19 delinquent debts totaling over $29,000. The applicant admitted to 15 of the allegations but denied four debts amounting to approximately $5,700.
In her response to the SOR, the applicant acknowledged her financial difficulties, attributing them to circumstances beyond her control and noted her engagement with a debt relief company. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant's history of financial irresponsibility and failure to demonstrate reliability or good judgment in managing her debts did not mitigate the security concerns. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial issues posed a risk to national security.
On appeal, the applicant presented new evidence and arguments that were not considered by the judge, which the Appeal Board could not review. The board affirmed the judge's decision, stating that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's assessment of the evidence, and reiterated that security clearances are granted only when consistent with national security.
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. 21-01510

Nov 7, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a U.S. security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was upheld by the appeal board, which found that the applicant failed to adequately mitigate concerns related to financial irresponsibility.

The government raised disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19, citing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and multiple delinquent debts. While the applicant presented information, the board concluded it was insufficient to resolve the security concerns.

Ultimately, the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient mitigation of the financial issues, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The applicant must demonstrate that the circumstances surrounding his financial difficulties are not indicative of a lack of judgment or reliability.”

Procedural Posture

Decision DateNov 7, 2022

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Burden of Proof on Applicant to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Impact of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy on Security Clearance 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 involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the judge erred in not mitigating the security concerns related to her financial history. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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.