CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01471 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01471

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/20/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01471) →
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 from the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) identified five delinquent debts totaling approximately $46,000. The applicant admitted to the three largest debts while tentatively denying two minor student loans, asserting they were in good standing. She requested a decision based on the written record and provided further explanations regarding her debts but did not submit documentation to support her claims.
The administrative judge found in favor of the applicant concerning the student loans, which were reported as delinquent but appeared to be current based on an updated credit report. However, the judge noted that the applicant had significant periods of unemployment, with the last occurring in 2019, and found no evidence of efforts to resolve the larger debts. Consequently, the judge concluded that the applicant's financial situation raised doubts about her reliability and trustworthiness. On appeal, the applicant argued that her overall career and efforts to address her debts were not adequately considered, but the appeal board upheld the judge's decision, stating that the findings were reasonable and supported by the record. The decision was affirmed, emphasizing that national security interests must take precedence in clearance determinations.
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. 24-01471

Mar 20, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to five delinquent debts totaling approximately $46,000. While she acknowledged three of these debts, she disputed two minor loans, asserting they were in good standing.

The denial was based on several factors. The applicant, representing herself, did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate efforts to resolve her significant financial obligations. Furthermore, her claims of being current on her bills lacked supporting evidence.

Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant's financial situation raised concerns about her reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment, leading to the denial of her appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge acknowledged periods of unemployment but found no evidence of efforts to resolve debts.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant did not provide documentation of any efforts to resolve her 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 issuedOct 29, 2024
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself.
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateMar 20, 2025Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution Efforts Under Guideline F
Impact of Financial Issues on Reliability and Trustworthiness
Whole-person Concept Analysis in Security Clearance Decisions

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge did not consider her entire career and her efforts to address her debts. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the analysis was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJennifer I. Goldstein — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge failed to properly consider her whole career and security clearance history.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge did not consider her being up to date on her bills and working towards addressing her financial concerns.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious. 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 appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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.