CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02412 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02412

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/9/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02412) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
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 failed to timely file federal and state income tax returns for the years 2018 through 2022 and had five delinquent debts totaling approximately $4,000. The applicant admitted to the tax failures but claimed that the returns were filed by March 2024. He acknowledged two of the delinquent debts and stated plans for repayment while denying the remaining three debts, asserting they were paid in full.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had made efforts to resolve his delinquent consumer debts but ruled adversely on the tax allegations. Although the applicant claimed to have filed all required tax returns, he failed to provide corroborating documentation, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so. The judge noted that the applicant's explanations regarding identity theft and the filing of returns were not sufficiently supported by evidence. Consequently, the judge concluded that the applicant's failure to demonstrate timely and responsible actions regarding his taxes raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. The appeal board affirmed the judge's decision, stating that the findings were not arbitrary or capricious and that the applicant did not meet the burden of proof necessary to mitigate the financial concerns.
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. 23-02412

Sep 9, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. Specifically, the denial cited the applicant's failure to file tax returns and delinquent debts, raising Disqualifying Conditions F1 and F3.

While the applicant admitted to some tax filing failures, he claimed to have subsequently filed the returns. However, he could not provide sufficient corroborating evidence to support these claims. The judge found that the applicant's explanations for the tax filing failures lacked adequate documentation.

Despite the application of Mitigating Condition F2, the lack of verifiable evidence for tax filings and the unsupported explanations led to the denial being upheld on appeal. The security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFailure to File or Pay Taxes
F3raisedDelinquent Debts

Mitigating

F2appliedThe Individual Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant was found to be working to resolve some delinquent debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 25, 2024
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing held—Hearing details not specified.
Decision dateSep 9, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Failure to Provide Corroborating Evidence for Tax Filings Under Guideline F
Consideration of Identity Theft as a Factor in Tax Filing Delinquencies
The Burden of Proof on the Applicant to Mitigate Disqualifying Conditions

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, specifically tax filing delinquencies. The Applicant argued that the Judge made significant errors in findings and misapplied guidelines. The Board affirmed the decision, finding that the Judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge made a factual error regarding state income tax obligations.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
The Judge failed to consider evidence that Applicant filed all federal tax returns in 2023.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge misapplied adjudicative guidelines and incorrectly assessed intent.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and that the record supported the Judge's findings and conclusions.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
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.