The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant admitted to the allegations but did not assert any specific errors on appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, as it found no harmful error.
The applicant made no assertion of error.
The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
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 15, 2026 _______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
----------- )
ISCR Case No. 25-01190
)
) 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 19, 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 May 26, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Discussion The SOR alleged that Applicant carried three delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $39,000, that he failed to timely file his federal and state tax returns for tax years 2020 through 2023, and that he owed a federal tax balance of approximately $45,000. In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations and explained how his financial problems arose and his efforts to resolve them. The Judge found that Applicant provided sufficient evidence to support his resolution of two credit card debts and resolved those allegations favorably. Noting that, as of
the hearing, Applicant still had not addressed the remaining credit card debt, filed his outstanding tax returns, or made formal arrangements to pay his federal tax balance, the Judge resolved the remaining 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. He instead requests reconsideration of the circumstances leading to his financial problems and offers additional narrative evidence about his tax resolution efforts. 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. 25-01190 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer Goldstein Jennifer Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 2