CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01548 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 22-01548

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/25/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-01548) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied due to concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined multiple allegations, including 13 instances of criminal conduct, such as misdemeanor traffic violations, assault convictions, and financial issues involving debts totaling approximately $28,700.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had a long history of criminal behavior, including theft, assault, and numerous traffic violations, which demonstrated a disregard for the law. The applicant admitted to some of the allegations but denied others, arguing that he had resolved certain debts and that the judge had mischaracterized some of his past offenses. However, the judge concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or responsible financial management.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, stating that the extensive criminal history and ongoing financial issues raised significant concerns about the applicant's reliability and judgment. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, noting that the judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant had not established any harmful errors in the judge's reasoning.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 22-01548

Jun 25, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A federal contractor in his early 40s was denied a security clearance due to a long history of criminal conduct and unresolved financial issues. The denial was based on Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

The applicant's criminal history included multiple convictions and probation violations. Additionally, he failed to demonstrate responsible financial management. These issues collectively raised significant questions regarding his reliability and trustworthiness.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant provided insufficient evidence of rehabilitation. The board cited ongoing security concerns stemming from his extensive criminal history and financial irresponsibility, ultimately upholding the decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

JraisedCriminal Conduct
EraisedPersonal Conduct
FraisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— Directive, Encl 2, App. A ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 12, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 21, 2024
Decision dateJun 25, 2024

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Extensive Criminal History Under Guideline J
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Under Guideline E
Ongoing Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F

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 was filed by the applicant after the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals denied his security clearance based on multiple allegations of criminal conduct, personal conduct, and financial considerations. The applicant contended that the Judge failed to consider relevant evidence and was biased. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error that would change the outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to consider all relevant evidence and misstated the facts.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
No specific harmful error was alleged.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the alleged errors did not affect the outcome of the case. The Judge's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, and the applicant failed to demonstrate harmful error.

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

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.