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

ISCR Case No. 24-01546

Appeal Board

Decided Apr 22, 2026 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal concerned the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant admitted to the allegations of delinquent debts but did not assert any errors on appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as there were no claims of harmful error.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Appearances

_______________________________________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD Date: April 22, 2026 ) In the matter of: ) ) ) --------- ) ISCR Case No. 24-01546 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)

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 November 25, 2024, 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 March 24, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.

Discussion

The SOR alleged that Applicant carried five delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $50,000. In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations with explanation and requested that his case be decided based on the written record. He received a complete copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material on January 22, 2026, and was notified of his 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 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 he instead requests reconsideration of the decision and additional time to demonstrate that he will resolve his debts. Applicant also provides new evidence in the form of an explanation for his failure to respond to the FORM and narrative updates about his 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. 24-01546 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