The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant, representing herself, did not assert any errors in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful errors in the record.
Applicant made no assertion of error.
The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant raised no specific claims of error and requested reconsideration of circumstances rather than asserting harmful errors.
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 APPEAL BOARD Date: May 19, 2026 _______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
------------- )
ISCR Case No. 25-01234
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
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 October 3, 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 April 23, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Discussion The SOR alleged that Applicant carried 12 delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $37,700. In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations with explanation and requested that her case be decided based on the written record. She received a complete copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material on January 20, 2026, and was notified of her ability to respond with any objections or additional information for the Judge to consider. Applicant did not respond to the FORM and the Judge resolved all but two allegations adversely.
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 she instead requests reconsideration of the circumstances leading to her financial problems, her resolution efforts, and the decision overall. 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. 25-01234 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