CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01591 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01591

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/25/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-01591) →
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 was a defense contractor in his early sixties who had held a security clearance for over 30 years. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The allegations included significant tax delinquencies totaling approximately $544,500 to the federal government and $107,600 to the state, along with an unpaid judgment of about $92,200. Additionally, the applicant was accused of falsifying his security clearance application by failing to disclose these financial issues.
In response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to the financial allegations but denied the falsification claim, asserting confusion regarding the application question. The administrative judge found that the applicant's financial problems were self-created, noting that he had the income to meet his tax obligations but chose not to withhold sufficient funds. The judge determined that no mitigating conditions applied, emphasizing the ongoing nature of the applicant's debts and his lack of payment plans. The judge also rejected the applicant's explanation for the omission on his application as not credible, given his educational background and experience.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, affirming that the applicant's financial irresponsibility and failure to disclose significant debts raised substantial security concerns. The appeal was denied, with the appeal board concluding that the judge's analysis was thorough and justified, maintaining that any doubts regarding national security eligibility must be resolved in favor of national security interests.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- 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. 23-01591

Feb 25, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor in his early sixties was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant faced significant financial difficulties, including over $650,000 in delinquent taxes and an unpaid judgment. These financial problems were determined to be self-created and ongoing.

A key factor in the denial was the applicant's deliberate failure to disclose these substantial tax debts on his security clearance application. His explanation for this omission was deemed not credible, particularly given his education and experience.

The judge found that the applicant's actions met disqualifying conditions related to both financial irresponsibility and a lack of candor. The appeal affirmed the original decision, concluding there was no error in the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15(a)raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 29, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 8, 2025
Decision dateFeb 25, 2025Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Self-created Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Deliberate Omission of Financial Obligations Under Guideline E
Burden of Proof on the Applicant in Appeal Cases

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 was filed by the Applicant after the denial of his security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding that the Applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's findings regarding his tax debts and failure to disclose them on his application.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider a critical piece of exculpatory evidence regarding his tax debts.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's analysis and conclusions were valid and supported by substantial evidence, and that the Applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
James B. Norman
Allison Marie

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.