CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00979 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00979

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/29/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00979) →
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 was a woman in her early 50s, who had a master's degree in business administration and was twice divorced with two adult children. The Department of Defense (DoD) denied her security clearance based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), citing ten allegations of delinquent consumer, auto, and student loan accounts in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). The applicant denied all allegations in her response to the SOR.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had successfully mitigated some debts, including four accounts totaling approximately $32,000, and was making payment arrangements for a $30,617 debt. However, the judge ruled against her on six other accounts totaling about $109,630, primarily consisting of delinquent student loans. The judge determined that the applicant had not demonstrated a meaningful effort to reduce her debts, particularly her student loans, and noted that her financial behavior, including expensive purchases, indicated a lack of responsibility in managing her debts.
Ultimately, the administrative judge denied the applicant's request for national security eligibility, concluding that she failed to mitigate the financial concerns raised by her significant indebtedness. The Appeal Board upheld the judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's findings or conclusions, which were supported by substantial evidence and articulated a rational connection between the facts and the decision made.
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. 24-00979

Aug 29, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A woman in her early 50s with a master's degree in business administration was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from significant financial issues, specifically six delinquent accounts totaling approximately $109,630.

The applicant's claims of resolving some of these debts were not supported by sufficient evidence. Consequently, the judges determined there was no meaningful track record of debt repayment.

Despite the application of mitigating conditions F3 and F2, the disqualifying condition F1 remained paramount. The initial denial was affirmed on appeal due to the applicant's failure to demonstrate consistent and substantiated efforts to resolve her substantial financial delinquencies.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

F3rejectedInability to Satisfy the DebtThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to show that her financial situation was beyond her control.
F2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial issues were not adequately mitigated by her claims.

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 issuedJul 15, 2024
Answer filedOct 1, 2023
Hearing heldJun 26, 2025
Decision dateAug 29, 2025Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Repayment as a Basis for Denial
Affirmation of Denial on Appeal Due to Lack of Mitigating Circumstances

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 appealed the decision, arguing that the Judge erred in his findings of fact. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the Applicant's financial situation.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge erred in his findings of fact regarding her financial situation.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant alleged no specific harmful error.

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 Judge did not err in his conclusions regarding the Applicant's financial situation. The Board determined that the errors alleged by the Applicant were either without merit or harmless, and thus did not affect the outcome of the case.

Standard of review applied

Substantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo 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.