CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01472 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01472

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/8/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-01472) →
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant, a federal contractor in his late 30s, sought a security clearance after having held one since 2010. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), alleging that the applicant failed to timely file federal and state income tax returns for multiple years and owed significant tax debts. Specifically, the applicant admitted to the allegations but claimed he had filed all delinquent returns and established payment plans with tax authorities.
The administrative judge found that while the applicant mitigated some concerns related to state tax debts and filings, he did not sufficiently address the issues surrounding his federal tax obligations. The applicant had filed some returns late and entered into payment agreements, but the judge noted a lack of evidence showing compliance with these agreements, particularly regarding overdue federal taxes. The judge concluded that the applicant's actions did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve his federal tax issues, leading to the denial of his security clearance. The appeal board affirmed the judge's decision, stating that the findings were well-supported by the evidence and that the applicant had not established any harmful error in the judge's conclusions.
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. 23-01472

Aug 8, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

In ISCR Case No. 23-01472, a security clearance applicant was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant tax delinquencies and a history of failing to file tax returns. The applicant admitted to some of the allegations, which included disqualifying condition F.1.

While the applicant asserted that all delinquent returns had been filed and payment plans established, the judges determined these actions did not sufficiently mitigate the federal tax issues. The panel found the evidence presented by the applicant to be inadequate in resolving the underlying financial concerns.

Consequently, the appeal was denied, and the security clearance was withheld.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFailure to File or Pay Taxes

Procedural Posture

Decision DateAug 8, 2025

Cite For

Insufficient Mitigation for Tax Delinquencies Under Guideline F
Impact of Tax Issues on Security Clearance Eligibility
Affirmation of Denial on Appeal Due to Financial Concerns

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 challenged the Judge's application of mitigating conditions and factual findings regarding tax filings. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the assessment of the applicant's financial situation and responsibilities.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowEric C. Price — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in applying the mitigating conditions and the Whole-Person Concept.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed the Judge made a factual error regarding the filing status of his 2020 federal income tax return.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge properly applied the mitigating conditions and made factual findings supported by substantial evidence. The Judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's financial responsibilities were reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious.

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
Jennifer I. Goldstein

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.