CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02104 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02104

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/26/2026
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-02104) →
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) indicated that the applicant failed to timely file federal and state income tax returns for the years 2019 through 2023 and had over $18,800 in delinquent consumer debt.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had mitigated the state tax issue and some consumer debts due to unusual circumstances. However, the applicant admitted to failing to file federal tax returns for five years and acknowledged a payment made to the IRS in September 2025. Despite this, the judge concluded that the applicant's overall handling of his federal taxes raised significant security concerns, particularly due to the delayed filing of returns and ongoing tax balances. The judge determined that the applicant's actions did not sufficiently mitigate the federal tax filing failures.
On appeal, the administrative judge's ruling was affirmed, as the judge provided a thorough explanation for the decision, indicating that the applicant's financial issues were not fully mitigated. The appeal board found that the judge's conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious and that the evidence supported the decision to deny the security clearance, emphasizing that any doubts regarding national security eligibility must be resolved in favor of national security.
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. 24-02104

Jan 26, 2026· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant failed to timely file federal and state income tax returns for five years and accumulated over $18,800 in delinquent consumer debt.

While the applicant made some payments to the IRS, the appeal board upheld the denial, noting that the financial problems remained unmitigated. The judge found that the applicant's overall handling of his taxes raised lingering security concerns, leading to the application of disqualifying condition AG ¶ 19.

Although mitigating condition AG ¶ 20(g) was considered, it was insufficient to overcome the security concerns. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(g)appliedThe Individual Has Made Arrangements with the Appropriate Tax Authority to File or Pay the Amount Owed and Is in Compliance with Those Arrangements.The applicant made a payment to the IRS but did not fully mitigate the tax filing failures.

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 issuedJan 2, 2025
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 8, 2025
Decision dateJan 26, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Failure to File Tax Returns on Security Clearance Eligibility
Application of Mitigating Conditions in Financial Considerations 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 applicant's failure to file tax returns and carryover of delinquent debt. The applicant challenged the Judge's application of mitigating conditions and the overall assessment of his financial situation. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's analysis of mitigating conditions was internally inconsistent.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's decision lacked a meaningful explanation for not fully mitigating the federal tax concerns.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and that the record supported the Judge's findings and conclusions regarding the applicant's financial considerations.

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
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.