CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01697 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 19-01697

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/25/2022
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 19-01697) →
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Iraq, who sought a security clearance for work as a contract linguist. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The allegations included a history of domestic violence, dishonesty in employment matters, and familial ties to individuals in countries with significant security risks.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had delinquent debts but ruled favorably on some allegations under Guideline F. However, the applicant admitted to incidents of domestic violence and dishonesty regarding his employment history, including lying about the reasons for absences and misrepresenting his job termination. He claimed to have severed ties with his family in Iraq and other countries, but the judge noted inconsistencies in his assertions and the potential risks associated with his familial connections.
Ultimately, the administrative judge denied the applicant's request for a security clearance, concluding that the applicant's history of violence and dishonesty raised significant security concerns that were not fully mitigated. The judge emphasized the ongoing risks posed by the applicant's family ties to individuals in countries with known security threats, despite the applicant's claims of reduced contact. The decision was affirmed on appeal, with the board finding no error in the judge's analysis or application of mitigating conditions.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For 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. 19-01697

Aug 25, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Iraq, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant's history included assault against both his spouse and a co-worker, raising significant questions about his personal conduct. Furthermore, a pattern of dishonesty, including falsifying information on his security clearance application, undermined his credibility.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, specifically citing insufficient evidence to mitigate these concerns. While the board found in favor of the applicant regarding financial considerations under Guideline F, this did not outweigh the other issues.

The applicant's familial ties to Iraq and other countries with significant security risks were also not sufficiently mitigated, contributing to the foreign influence concerns. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 6(a), AG ¶ 6(c), AG ¶ 6(d), and AG ¶ 7(a) were raised, and while mitigating conditions AG ¶ 8(b) and AG ¶ 17(c) were applied, they were ultimately deemed insufficient to overcome the identified security risks.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 6(a)raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 6(c)raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 6(d)raisedDishonesty
AG ¶ 7(a)raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(b)appliedMitigating Condition for Foreign InfluenceThe applicant's desire to work for the U.S. and his naturalized citizenship were considered, but not sufficient to mitigate risks.
AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedMitigating Condition for Personal ConductThe judge found the applicant's incidents of dishonesty reflected a pattern, not isolated events.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 20, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 26, 2022
Decision dateAug 25, 2022Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
Impact of Foreign Familial Ties on Security Clearance Under Guideline B
Pattern of Dishonesty Affecting Credibility in Security Clearance Evaluations.

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

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guidelines B, E, and F. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider all evidence and misapplied mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to properly consider all available evidence and misapplied the mitigating conditions.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not commit harmful error and that her decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Judge's analysis was not arbitrary or capricious, and she properly considered the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
James E. Moody
Moira Modzelewski

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.