CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00256 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00256

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/10/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-00256) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
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 twelve delinquent debts totaling approximately $65,500, which raised security concerns regarding the applicant's financial responsibility.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to some of the debts while denying others, providing explanations for how the debts were incurred. The administrative judge found in favor of the applicant on three allegations, while ruling against her on the remaining debts. Although the applicant claimed to have made efforts to address her debts, including contacting creditors for settlement offers, the judge determined that these actions were insufficient and had occurred after the hearing, indicating a lack of responsible financial management.
The administrative judge ultimately denied the applicant's request for national security eligibility, concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient financial responsibility. The Appeal Board affirmed this decision, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge, thus sustaining the ruling.
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. 23-00256

Apr 10, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to twelve delinquent debts totaling approximately $65,500. The applicant, representing herself, faced concerns regarding financial irresponsibility.

The judge found against the applicant on the majority of claims, determining that her efforts to address the debts after the hearing were insufficient to demonstrate responsible action. These post-hearing attempts to settle the outstanding obligations did not adequately mitigate the initial concerns.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's original decision. The denial was based on the persistent financial concerns and the applicant's inadequate efforts to resolve them.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 13, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 13, 2025
Decision dateApr 10, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Multiple Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Insufficient Post-hearing Actions to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Affirmation of a Judge's Decision When No Harmful Error Is Alleged on Appeal.

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 security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Judge's findings were supported by the evidence presented during the hearing.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
James B. Norman

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.