The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the denial was due to insufficient documentation of her efforts to address her debts. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.
Applicant did not assert any specific harmful error on appeal.
The Board found that the Administrative Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious. The Judge reasonably weighed the disqualifying and mitigating conditions and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.
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 August 5, 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 9, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Jeff A. Nagel denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Discussion Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file, as required, her federal income tax return for tax year 2021 and that she has 21 delinquent debts totaling approximately $18,000. The Judge found that the evidence established all allegations. He applied disqualifying
conditions AG ¶¶ 19(a), 19(c), and 19(f) against Applicant and found no mitigating conditions applied.1 On Appeal, Applicant noted, “I believe the denial was largely based on my failure to provide sufficient supporting documentation during the DOHA open record period, demonstrating my good-faith efforts to address and mitigate the personal debt I accumulated over the past four years.” Appeal Brief at 1. She then provided 12 pages of documentation relating to her resolution efforts. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. The decision reflects that the Judge considered the record before him, weighed the disqualifying and mitigating conditions, and reasonably determined that the concerns about Applicant’s finances were unmitigated. Conclusion Applicant has not established that the Judge’s conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Rather, the Judge examined and weighed the disqualifying and mitigating evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The record is sufficient to support that the Judge’s findings and conclusions are sustainable. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Dep’t 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) 1 AG ¶ 19(a): inability to satisfy debts; AG ¶ 19(c): a history of not meeting financial obligations; AG ¶ 19(f): failure to file or fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required. 2
Order The decision in ISCR Case No. 25-00487 is AFFIRMED. Signed: 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 3