The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant did not assert any errors in the Administrative Judge's decision and instead provided additional narrative responses. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision without considering new evidence.
The applicant made no assertion of error.
The applicant did not raise any specific claims of error on appeal, and the Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision based on the existing record.
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 8, 2026 _______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
---------- )
ISCR Case No. 25-01450
)
) 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 November 25, 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 5, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge A. M. Driskill denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Discussion The SOR alleged that Applicant carried approximately $53,500 in delinquent consumer and child support debt. In response to the SOR, Applicant denied the two child support accounts and a consumer account without explanation, admitted the remaining four allegations that totaled about $36,600, 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 February 2, 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 his case and provides narrative responses to the SOR and FORM with supporting documentation. 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. 25-01450 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