CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00658 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 24-00658

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/27/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00658) →
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 but was denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) related to his failure to file federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2018 through 2022 and an outstanding federal tax balance of approximately $5,400. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons outlining these issues, which the applicant admitted but claimed to have resolved by filing the necessary returns and entering a repayment plan.
Key facts revealed that the applicant had inconsistently reported his tax filing status and failed to provide requested documentation, specifically IRS tax account transcripts, despite multiple opportunities to do so. Although he asserted that he had filed his returns and was making payments on his tax debt, he did not submit evidence to substantiate these claims. The administrative judge found that the applicant's failure to provide the required transcripts and documentation undermined his credibility and did not meet the burden of proof necessary to mitigate the financial concerns.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, affirming the denial of his security clearance. The judge concluded that the applicant had not sufficiently addressed the allegations or provided adequate evidence to demonstrate compliance with tax obligations, thereby failing to mitigate the security concerns raised by the government. The decision was subsequently affirmed by the Appeal Board, which found no harmful error in the judge's assessment.
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. 24-00658

Feb 27, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unmitigated financial issues. The applicant failed to file federal and state tax returns from 2018 to 2022 and owed approximately $5,400 in federal taxes. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 19.

Despite the applicant's claims of having filed all outstanding returns and being on a repayment plan, he did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate these assertions. Specifically, the government made multiple requests for tax account transcripts, which the applicant failed to provide. Furthermore, documentation supporting the claimed repayment plan was not adequately submitted.

Consequently, the applicant's appeal was denied, as the government's concerns regarding his financial responsibility remained unaddressed. The lack of verifiable evidence to mitigate the identified financial delinquencies led to the final decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial 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.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 23, 2024
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself (pro se) and did not file a formal answer.
Hearing heldJan 8, 2025
Decision dateFeb 27, 2025Decision was on appeal.

Cite For

Failure to Provide Requested Documentation Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Burden of Persuasion Lies with the Applicant in Security Clearance 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 involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations, specifically the failure to file tax returns and an outstanding tax balance. The Applicant argued that evidence he provided was not considered. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that he provided evidence regarding his tax transcripts that was not considered.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that he submitted documentation of his IRS payment plan that was overlooked.

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 findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Applicant did not demonstrate harmful error. The Judge properly weighed the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.

Standard of review applied

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

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.