The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations, with the applicant arguing that the judge did not adequately assess his credibility. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's evaluation of the evidence.
Applicant argued that the decision was made without properly assessing his credibility and character.
The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
_______________________________________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203-1995 Date: April 16, 2026 ) In the matter of: ) ) ) --------- ) ISCR Case No. 24-02252 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) APPEAL BOARD DECISION 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 January 28, 2025, 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 February 25, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Discussion The SOR alleged 18 delinquent debts totaling approximately $41,000. The Judge found for Applicant on four debts, finding Applicant was resolving two debts and that two other debts were duplicated on the SOR. He found against Applicant on the remaining 14 debts, with a total of about $35,000 remaining delinquent. On Appeal, Applicant argues that “the decision appears to have been made solely on a review of documentation, without the benefit of meeting me personally or assessing my credibility, character, and intent.” Appeal Brief at 3. However, Applicant appeared personally before the Judge via video teleconference held January 13, 2026. An applicant’s right under Executive Order 10865
to “appear personally” before an Administrative Judge is satisfied by a video teleconference proceeding in which the applicant appears live on-screen and which permits the judge to see, hear, and speak directly to the applicant in real time. The rest of Applicant’s arguments on appeal fail to assert error on the part of the Judge. Instead, Applicant argues that the Judge should have weighed the evidence differently. None of his arguments, however, are sufficient to establish the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. An applicant’s “disagreement with the judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate that the judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). We have considered the entirety of the arguments contained in his appeal brief. Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error or that he should be granted any relief on appeal. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on the record. “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). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b). Order The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-02252 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 2
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 January 28, 2025, 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 February 25, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Discussion The SOR alleged 18 delinquent debts totaling approximately $41,000. The Judge found for Applicant on four debts, finding Applicant was resolving two debts and that two other debts were duplicated on the SOR. He found against Applicant on the remaining 14 debts, with a total of about $35,000 remaining delinquent. On Appeal, Applicant argues that “the decision appears to have been made solely on a review of documentation, without the benefit of meeting me personally or assessing my credibility, character, and intent.” Appeal Brief at 3. However, Applicant appeared personally before the Judge via video teleconference held January 13, 2026. An applicant’s right under Executive Order 10865
to “appear personally” before an Administrative Judge is satisfied by a video teleconference proceeding in which the applicant appears live on-screen and which permits the judge to see, hear, and speak directly to the applicant in real time. The rest of Applicant’s arguments on appeal fail to assert error on the part of the Judge. Instead, Applicant argues that the Judge should have weighed the evidence differently. None of his arguments, however, are sufficient to establish the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. An applicant’s “disagreement with the judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate that the judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). We have considered the entirety of the arguments contained in his appeal brief. Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error or that he should be granted any relief on appeal. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on the record. “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). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b). Order The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-02252 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 2
Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 28, 2025, 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 February 25, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Discussion The SOR alleged 18 delinquent debts totaling approximately $41,000. The Judge found for Applicant on four debts, finding Applicant was resolving two debts and that two other debts were duplicated on the SOR. He found against Applicant on the remaining 14 debts, with a total of about $35,000 remaining delinquent. On Appeal, Applicant argues that “the decision appears to have been made solely on a review of documentation, without the benefit of meeting me personally or assessing my credibility, character, and intent.” Appeal Brief at 3. However, Applicant appeared personally before the Judge via video teleconference held January 13, 2026. An applicant’s right under Executive Order 10865
to “appear personally” before an Administrative Judge is satisfied by a video teleconference proceeding in which the applicant appears live on-screen and which permits the judge to see, hear, and speak directly to the applicant in real time. The rest of Applicant’s arguments on appeal fail to assert error on the part of the Judge. Instead, Applicant argues that the Judge should have weighed the evidence differently. None of his arguments, however, are sufficient to establish the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. An applicant’s “disagreement with the judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate that the judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). We have considered the entirety of the arguments contained in his appeal brief. Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error or that he should be granted any relief on appeal. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on the record. “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). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b). Order The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-02252 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 2