CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00347.a1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 20-00347.a1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/11/2021
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 20-00347) →See the hearing decision (Case 20-00347) →
Participants
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: Dan O'Reilley
Case Summary
The applicant, a man in his early thirties with a military background and three minor children, sought a security clearance after the Department of Defense (DoD) raised concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined multiple allegations of criminal conduct stemming from a volatile relationship with the mother of one of his children, including domestic violence incidents and a conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to some incidents but denied others, asserting that he was often acting in self-defense. He provided evidence of character references and demonstrated remorse, indicating he had taken steps to mitigate the situation, such as obtaining protective orders and changing custody transfer locations. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant's pattern of behavior raised significant security concerns, particularly noting that the evidence suggested mutual assaults rather than self-defense.
The Appeal Board ultimately reversed the judge's favorable decision, concluding that the judge had failed to adequately consider the evidence as a whole. The Board emphasized that the applicant's history of confrontations and the nature of the allegations against him undermined his trustworthiness and reliability, which are critical factors in determining eligibility for a security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00347.a1

Aug 11, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves a military veteran in his early thirties with three minor children, whose security clearance was reviewed under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Concerns arose from a history of volatile interactions with the mother of one of his children, including multiple allegations of domestic violence and a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) conviction.

The DOHA Judge initially issued a favorable decision, but the Appeal Board reversed this outcome. The Board found that the Judge failed to consider corroborating evidence and did not adequately assess the applicant's conduct as a whole. Specifically, the Board determined that the applicant's pattern of confrontations and assaults raised significant security concerns under both Guideline J (Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 15) and Guideline E (Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 30).

Despite the application of mitigating conditions AG ¶ 32(c) and AG ¶ 32(d), the Appeal Board concluded that the record evidence did not sufficiently mitigate the Government's security concerns. Consequently, the Board found that the applicant engaged in conduct raising security concerns, and no security clearance was granted.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(c)rejectedNo Reliable Evidence to Support That the Individual Committed the OffenseThe Judge's reasoning was not sustainable as it relied on assumptions about why charges were dropped.
AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant's denials of committing offenses and failure to refrain from such conduct undermined claims of rehabilitation.

Key Rule Quoted

“A DOHA Judge must consider the evidence as a whole, rather than in a piecemeal manner, in rendering a decision.”
— Directive ¶ 6.3.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 12, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 30, 2021
Decision dateAug 11, 2021Appeal Board decision reversed the favorable ruling.

Cite For

Failure to Consider Corroborating Evidence in Security Clearance Decisions
The Necessity of Evaluating Evidence as a Whole in Security Clearance Cases
The Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guidelines J and E.

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Reversed

The appeal involved a decision by an Administrative Judge granting a security clearance to the Applicant despite multiple allegations of criminal conduct. The Department Counsel appealed, arguing that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Appeal Board found that the Judge ignored corroborating evidence and failed to provide a rational connection between the facts and the decision. The Board reversed the favorable decision, establishing that the evidence raised security concerns under Guidelines J and E.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's decision was found to be arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, failing to consider important aspects of the case and running contrary to the record evidence.

Ignored material evidenceNo rational connection between facts and conclusion

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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

Full decision

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