The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant, representing himself, appealed the decision but did not allege any harmful errors. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision.
The applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.
The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not raise any specific claims of harmful error on appeal.
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: July 9, 2026 _______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
------ )
ISCR Case No. 25-01224
)
) 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 September 30, 2025, 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). The Government subsequently withdrew the Guideline E allegation. On May 22, 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, as amended, alleged that Applicant carried ten consumer, automobile, residential lease, and student loan debts that were delinquent for approximately $27,000. 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 (FORM) on March 10, 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 reiterates his efforts to resolve his financial problems and requests reconsideration of his case. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and our authority to review a case is limited to matters in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error. Applicant has not alleged any such error. Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is affirmed. Order The decision in ISCR Case No. 25-01224 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Eric H. Borgstrom Eric H. Borgstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 2