CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00761 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 22-00761

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/13/2024
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 22-00761) →See the hearing decision (Case 22-00761) →See the hearing decision (Case 22-00761) →
Participants
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Applicant's Counsel: Daniel S. Conway
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a cyber-operations analyst in his mid-thirties, employed by a defense contractor since September 2022. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and J (Criminal Conduct) due to three arrests related to domestic violence and the issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) against him. The applicant admitted to the arrests and the existence of the TROs but denied committing any underlying offenses.
The administrative judge found that the applicant's arrests were dismissed due to the absence of his former spouses at the hearings, and the charges were later expunged. The judge concluded that while the government established possible concerns under the relevant guidelines, the applicant had successfully mitigated these concerns by demonstrating a lack of reliable evidence supporting the allegations. The judge's ruling was based on the applicant's claims of innocence and the absence of testimony from the former spouses, which led to a favorable credibility determination for the applicant. However, the government appealed, arguing that the judge erred by not adequately considering the evidence presented in the TRO petitions, which indicated potential underlying conduct. The appeal board remanded the case for further consideration.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 22-00761

Jun 13, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

This case involves a mid-thirties cyber-operations analyst with a military background whose security clearance was initially denied under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from concerns related to domestic violence arrests.

While the initial ruling favored the applicant, the Government appealed this decision. The appeal resulted in a remand, requiring a reevaluation of the evidence and credibility determinations. This indicates a need for a more comprehensive assessment of the allegations and the applicant's claims of innocence regarding the domestic violence incidents.

Disqualifying conditions raised included AG ¶ 31(a), AG ¶ 31(b), and AG ¶ 16(c). However, several mitigating conditions were applied, specifically AG ¶ 32(a), AG ¶ 32(c), AG ¶ 32(d), AG ¶ 17(c), AG ¶ 17(d), AG ¶ 17(e), and AG ¶ 17(f). The ultimate outcome of the security clearance decision is currently none, pending the reevaluation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(a)raisedPattern of Minor Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 32(c)appliedNo Reliable Evidence to Support the Offense
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation
AG ¶ 17(c)appliedMinor Offense or Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment of Behavior and Counseling
AG ¶ 17(e)appliedSteps to Reduce Vulnerability
AG ¶ 17(f)appliedUnsubstantiated Information

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance decision must be based upon a reasonable interpretation of the record evidence viewed as a cumulative whole.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 8, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 11, 2024
Decision dateJun 13, 2024Decision remanded for reevaluation.

Cite For

Remand for Reevaluation of Evidence and Credibility Determinations
Consideration of Domestic Violence Allegations in Security Clearance Cases
Importance of Comprehensive Assessment of Record Evidence in Adjudications.

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

Remanded

The appeal involved a security clearance decision where the Government contended that the Judge made erroneous factual findings regarding the Applicant's history of domestic violence. The Board found that the Judge failed to properly weigh evidence and made conclusions that were not supported by the record, leading to a remand for further proceedings.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRobert Tuider — granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge made an erroneous factual finding that Applicant did not abuse his two ex-wives.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's decision was remanded due to harmful errors in factual findings and failure to adequately consider significant evidence contrary to the Applicant's assertions.

Ignored material evidenceNo rational connection between facts and conclusion

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must correct the identified harmful errors and issue a new decision.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
James B. Norman

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.