CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00808 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00808

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/19/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00808) →
Participants
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 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) indicated that the applicant had delinquent federal tax balances of approximately $600 for tax year 2015 and $62,000 for tax year 2016, along with multiple state tax liens totaling around $25,000.
During the proceedings, the applicant denied the 2015 federal tax balance, asserting it had been paid, while admitting to the other allegations with explanations. The administrative judge found that the applicant had resolved the state tax liens but ruled adversely on the 2016 federal tax balance, noting the applicant had made no payments towards this debt and had only recently filed an appeal for reconsideration. The judge expressed concerns about the applicant's long history of financial irresponsibility, concluding that it raised doubts about the applicant's reliability and judgment.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, stating that the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error in the ruling. The Board noted that the applicant had not requested conditional security eligibility during the hearing and failed to provide evidence of proposed security measures to mitigate the financial issues. The decision emphasized that national security interests take precedence, and any doubts regarding eligibility must be resolved in favor of national security.
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. 24-00808

May 19, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, represented by Rochelle Chernikoff, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. These included a federal tax debt of $62,000 and multiple state tax liens totaling approximately $25,000. The appeal was denied, with the judges citing the applicant's long history of financial irresponsibility and inaction regarding these debts.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate financial responsibility for the $62,000 federal tax debt. This history of inaction and irresponsibility raised doubts about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness, which are critical for security clearance eligibility.

Ultimately, the applicant did not present sufficient evidence to support a claim for conditional security eligibility, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 25, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 19, 2025
Decision dateMay 19, 2025

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility as a Basis for Security Clearance Denial
The Importance of Resolving Tax Debts for National Security Eligibility
The Standard for Granting Conditional Security Eligibility Under Appendix C of SEAD 4

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 delinquent federal and state taxes. The Applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider available measures to mitigate residual risks. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPersonal representative

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge failed to incorporate available measures to manage any minor residual risk to national security.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record. The Board concluded that Applicant did not establish that the Judge committed harmful error.

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
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.