The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any specific errors on appeal and requested reconsideration instead. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision.
Applicant made no assertion of error on appeal.
The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of security clearance.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel
Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On November 28, 2023, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) 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 January 13, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Eric Price denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Discussion Under Guideline F, the SOR, as amended, alleged that Applicant carried 12 delinquent consumer and auto debts totaling approximately $65,000 and that he failed to file his federal income tax returns for tax years 2017 through 2025. The SOR further alleged under Guideline E that Applicant deliberately failed to disclose the foregoing financial problems on his 2022 security
clearance application (SCA). In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations with explanation. The Judge found in Applicant’s favor on one minor past-due consumer debt, which had been resolved. Opining that Applicant submitted insufficient evidence to support that his debts were being addressed voluntarily, that his federal tax returns had been filed, or that any resulting tax balance was being paid, the Judge resolved the remaining Guideline F allegations adversely. The Judge also found adversely on the Guideline E allegations, noting Applicant’s earlier failure to disclose his financial and tax problems on a 2020 SCA, and he concluded that Applicant’s 2022 SCA falsifications continue to cast doubt on his reliability trustworthiness, and judgment. 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, and he instead requests reconsideration of the decision and additional time to resolve his debts. Applicant also provides new evidence in the form of narrative updates about his efforts to resolve the financial problems. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is affirmed. Order The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-01864 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 2
FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On November 28, 2023, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) 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 January 13, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Eric Price denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Discussion Under Guideline F, the SOR, as amended, alleged that Applicant carried 12 delinquent consumer and auto debts totaling approximately $65,000 and that he failed to file his federal income tax returns for tax years 2017 through 2025. The SOR further alleged under Guideline E that Applicant deliberately failed to disclose the foregoing financial problems on his 2022 security
clearance application (SCA). In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations with explanation. The Judge found in Applicant’s favor on one minor past-due consumer debt, which had been resolved. Opining that Applicant submitted insufficient evidence to support that his debts were being addressed voluntarily, that his federal tax returns had been filed, or that any resulting tax balance was being paid, the Judge resolved the remaining Guideline F allegations adversely. The Judge also found adversely on the Guideline E allegations, noting Applicant’s earlier failure to disclose his financial and tax problems on a 2020 SCA, and he concluded that Applicant’s 2022 SCA falsifications continue to cast doubt on his reliability trustworthiness, and judgment. 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, and he instead requests reconsideration of the decision and additional time to resolve his debts. Applicant also provides new evidence in the form of narrative updates about his efforts to resolve the financial problems. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is affirmed. Order The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-01864 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 2