CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02193 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02193

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/19/2026
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-02193) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales, Brittany C. M. White
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a defense contractor employee in her early 40s, who had previously earned a juris doctorate degree and worked as a court-appointed lawyer. The Department of Defense (DoD) denied her security clearance based on allegations under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons indicated that she failed to file federal income tax returns for the years 2017 and 2020 and owed over $82,000 in federal taxes for multiple years.
The applicant admitted to the allegations and explained that her financial difficulties stemmed from periods of unemployment and underemployment, as well as personal challenges, including caring for her ill mother. She had made an Offer in Compromise to the IRS to settle her tax debts and had begun making payments. However, she also disclosed significant student loan debt in default, which raised concerns about her financial responsibility.
The administrative judge initially granted the applicant national security eligibility, citing her full-time employment and efforts to resolve her tax issues. However, upon appeal, the Board found that the judge's decision lacked a thorough analysis of the mitigating factors and did not adequately address the applicant's history of financial irresponsibility. The Board concluded that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof for mitigation, resulting in a reversal of the judge's decision and a denial of her security clearance eligibility.
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. 24-02193

Feb 19, 2026· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

This DOHA security clearance case involved an applicant, a woman in her early 40s with a juris doctorate, who was initially denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from her failure to file federal income tax returns for multiple years and an outstanding tax debt exceeding $82,000. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 were raised due to these financial issues.

The applicant argued for mitigation, citing her current employment and an Offer in Compromise submitted to the IRS. However, the judge's initial mitigation analysis was deemed insufficient, as it did not adequately consider her overall financial history and responsibilities. Furthermore, her Offer in Compromise had not yet been accepted, indicating ongoing financial problems.

Despite these concerns, the appeal board ultimately found the initial decision unsustainable. They determined that the judge had not adequately considered mitigating factors, specifically AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(d), and AG ¶ 20(g). Consequently, the board reversed the denial, resulting in an outcome of "None" for the initial denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's history of failing to file tax returns and ongoing debt indicated that future financial problems were likely.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Beyond ControlThe applicant's financial issues were not solely due to circumstances beyond her control.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to RepayThe applicant's Offer in Compromise was not accepted, and her payment history was insufficient.
AG ¶ 20(g)rejectedArrangements with Tax AuthorityThe applicant's Offer in Compromise had not been accepted, and her tax compliance was inadequate.

Key Rule Quoted

“The mere filing of delinquent tax returns or the existence of a payment arrangement with an appropriate tax authority does not compel a Judge to issue a favorable decision.”
— ISCR Case No. 17-01807 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2018)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 28, 2025
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateFeb 19, 2026Decision reversed on appeal.

Cite For

Insufficient Mitigation Analysis Under Guideline F
Reversal of Favorable Decisions Due to Inadequate Consideration of Financial Responsibility
Impact of Ongoing Financial Issues on Security Clearance Eligibility

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

Reversed

The appeal involved a security clearance denial based on financial considerations. The Administrative Judge initially granted the clearance, but the Government appealed, arguing that the Judge's analysis was flawed. The Appeal Board found merit in the Government's arguments and reversed the decision, concluding that the applicant did not meet the burden of persuasion regarding her financial responsibility.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge failed to articulate a rational explanation for the application of mitigating conditions and did not consider important aspects of the case.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's decision was reversed due to failure to properly apply mitigating conditions and consider the totality of the applicant's financial situation, leading to an unsustainable conclusion.

No rational connection between facts and conclusionMissing findings

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

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.