A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 24-01034
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 7, 2026 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced financial concerns under Guideline F due to 11 delinquent debts totaling approximately $21,500. Despite admitting to nine debts and providing some documentation, the judge found insufficient evidence of financial resolution, leading to the denial of the security clearance. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the original decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had 11 delinquent debts totaling approximately $21,500, which raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The judge found insufficient evidence that the applicant's financial problems were being resolved or that she was adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20(a) Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2024-10-09
- Answer filed
- Applicant elected a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- Additional information submitted in response to Government’s File of Relevant Material.
- Decision date
- 2026-01-07 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Insufficient Evidence of Financial Resolution 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
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any specific harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, finding it sustainable based on the lack of error allegations.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
----------- )
ISCR Case No. 24-01034
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: January 7, 2026
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On October 9, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On September 29, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Eric C. Price denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Discussion
The SOR alleged 11 delinquent debts totaling approximately $21,500. In her response to the SOR, Applicant admitted nine of the debts and denied two, providing explanations and documents. Applicant elected a decision on the written record and subsequently submitted additional information in response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material. The Judge found favorably on three of the alleged debts and adversely on the remaining eight. Although the Judge
credited Applicant with enrolling several of the debts in a debt relief program, he noted that she did not provide sufficient documentary evidence that she had made the required payments and concluded that “[t]he evidence is insufficient to establish that her financial problems are being resolved, are under control, or that she initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors.” Decision at 7. 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. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of error but rather provides both her monthly budget and an update on her resolution efforts. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant national security eligibility is sustainable.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-01034 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board