CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01173 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01173

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/27/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01173) →
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 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) outlined 14 delinquent debts totaling approximately $69,700, which raised security concerns regarding the applicant's financial responsibility.
In response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to nine of the delinquent debts while denying five. The administrative judge found against the applicant on all allegations, concluding that the admitted debts indicated a lack of financial stability and responsibility. The applicant did not assert any specific errors made by the judge during the initial decision but instead submitted new evidence for reconsideration.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, stating that there was no presumption of error and that the applicant had not raised any claims of harmful error. The board noted that it is prohibited from considering new evidence and that the judge's decision was sustainable based on the information presented.
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. 24-01173

Aug 27, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing themselves was denied a U.S. security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from 14 delinquent debts totaling approximately $69,700.

The applicant admitted to nine of these delinquencies, which significantly contributed to the security concerns. Although the applicant denied five of the debts, the Administrative Judge upheld the denial of the security clearance.

This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Appeal Board, which found no harmful error in the initial ruling. The presence of numerous substantial delinquent debts, coupled with the applicant's admissions, led to the final denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.30.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 29, 2024
Answer filed—Applicant represented themselves (pro se).
Hearing heldJul 1, 2025
Decision dateAug 27, 2025Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Burden of Raising Claims of Error on Appeal
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal Process

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. The Applicant did not assert any errors by the Administrative Judge but submitted new evidence, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The Applicant made no assertion of error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error alleged by the Applicant and affirmed the Judge's decision as sustainable.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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.