CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01002 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-01002

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/26/2024
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-01002) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales, Daniel P. O'Reilley
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a retired military service member in his mid-60s, who had been married since 1991 and had two adult children. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The allegations included providing financial support to multiple foreign nationals and engaging in an extramarital relationship with a Philippine citizen, which his spouse was unaware of.
The applicant admitted to the allegations, explaining that he had provided financial support to four residents of the Philippines and one from the United Kingdom over several years. He acknowledged a brief physical relationship with one of the Philippine citizens in 2007 and admitted that his wife was unaware of these relationships until recently. The applicant cited financial difficulties due to COVID-19 but indicated he was working to rectify his mortgage situation.
The administrative judge initially granted the applicant security clearance eligibility, but the appeal board reversed this decision. The board found that the judge's mitigation analysis was flawed, particularly regarding the applicant's ongoing secrecy about his relationships, which created a vulnerability to coercion. The board concluded that the applicant's conduct and concealment of information posed a significant risk to national security, leading to the reversal of the favorable ruling.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal 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. 22-01002

Sep 26, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A retired military member in his mid-60s faced security clearance concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), D (Sexual Behavior), and E (Personal Conduct). These concerns stemmed from his admitted financial support to foreign nationals and an extramarital relationship.

The initial decision to grant clearance was reversed by the appeal board. The board found the judge's favorable findings arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. Specifically, the applicant's financial support to foreign nationals raised disqualifying conditions under Guideline B. His extramarital relationship was deemed to create a vulnerability to coercion, falling under Guideline D.

Furthermore, the judge's findings regarding the applicant's concealment of relationships were found to lack evidentiary support, raising concerns under Guideline E. While mitigating conditions were considered, the board ultimately determined that the disqualifying conditions, particularly the applicant's vulnerability to coercion and the nature of his relationships, were not adequately addressed. As a result, no clearance was granted.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign CitizensThe applicant's financial support to foreign nationals raised concerns of foreign exploitation.
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedPotential Conflict of InterestThe nature of the applicant's relationships could create a conflict of interest.
AG ¶ 13(c)raisedSexual BehaviorThe applicant's extramarital relationship raised concerns of vulnerability to coercion.
AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct Creating VulnerabilityThe applicant's concealment of relationships created vulnerability to exploitation.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 14(b)rejectedTime Since ConductThe judge improperly focused on the age of the infidelity without considering ongoing vulnerability.
AG ¶ 14(c)rejectedNo Coercion or ExploitationThe judge failed to address the applicant's ongoing secrecy and its implications.

Key Rule Quoted

“"Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security."”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 24, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateSep 26, 2024Appeal decision reversing prior grant of clearance.

Cite For

Reversal of Favorable Findings Due to Arbitrary and Unsupported Evidence
Vulnerability to Coercion From Foreign Relationships Under Guideline D
Insufficient Mitigation Analysis Under Guidelines B 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 security clearance denial based on allegations of foreign influence, sexual behavior, and personal conduct. The Administrative Judge initially granted the clearance, but the Government appealed, arguing that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Appeal Board found merit in the Government's arguments and reversed the decision.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas — granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline DGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge's applications of the Guideline B, Guideline D, and Guideline E mitigating conditions and his analysis under the Whole-Person Concept were arbitrary and capricious.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge ignored significant record evidence regarding the nature and extent of Applicant's relationships with foreign nationals.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge's favorable finding regarding Applicant's extramarital sexual relationship was unsupported by the record.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's findings under Guidelines E and D were arbitrary and capricious, failing to consider important aspects of the case and running contrary to the weight of the record evidence. The Government demonstrated reversible error below, leading to the reversal of the Judge's favorable decision.

Ignored material evidenceMisapplied mitigationNo rational connection between facts and conclusion

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
James B. Norman
Allison Marie

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.