CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01303 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01303

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/28/2025
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 23-01303) →See the hearing decision (Case 23-01303) →
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 financial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined 15 allegations, primarily involving delinquent student loans, federal and state taxes, and consumer accounts. The administrative judge ultimately found in favor of the applicant on 13 of the allegations but ruled adversely on two consumer accounts totaling approximately $10,700.
The applicant admitted to having past-due debts related to the two adverse accounts but submitted evidence of a payment plan for one of the debts after the hearing. However, the judge did not consider this evidence in his decision. The appeal board noted that the judge's oversight of the payment plan documentation could have affected the outcome of the case, as it pertained to one of the debts in question.
As a result, the appeal board remanded the case to the administrative judge for correction of the identified error and further processing. The board emphasized that the judge must issue a new decision upon remand, and they retained no jurisdiction over the subsequent decision.
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. 23-01303

Jan 28, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

This DOHA security clearance case involved an applicant representing themselves, facing concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The initial decision identified 13 allegations favorably, but also noted two adverse consumer accounts totaling approximately $10,700. These accounts raised a disqualifying condition under AG ¶ 20.

The applicant appealed the decision. The appeal resulted in a remand of the case, not a final grant or denial of clearance. The remand was ordered to correct an identified error concerning one of the two adverse debts.

The reviewing authority determined that this error may have been outcome determinative, meaning its correction could potentially change the final security clearance decision. Therefore, no final outcome has been reached in this case as it awaits further review and correction at the agency level.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

Decision DateJan 28, 2025

Cite For

Remand for Correction of Identified Errors in Financial Matters
Consideration of Multiple Favorable Allegations Against Adverse Findings
Impact of Financial Errors on Security Clearance Decisions

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

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge overlooked evidence of a payment plan for one of the debts. The Board found that this oversight could have been outcome determinative and remanded the case for correction of the error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge overlooked evidence regarding a payment plan for one of the debts.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge's adverse finding on the debts was arbitrary and capricious due to the oversight of evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge overlooked evidence that could have affected the outcome of the case, necessitating a remand for correction and further processing.

Ignored material evidence

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must correct the identified error and issue a new decision consistent with the Directive.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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.