CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01851 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 22-01851

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/21/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-01851) →
Participants
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 44-year-old retired military service member who had served honorably from 1999 to 2020 and was employed by a federal contractor. The Department of Defense (DoD) denied his request for a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), specifically related to two arrests in 2013 and 2020. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had admitted to the allegations but had minimized their significance.
During the proceedings, the applicant acknowledged his past arrests, including a 2013 incident involving domestic violence charges, for which he received a deferred disposition, and a 2020 automobile accident where he left the scene and was charged with felony failure to stop. He provided explanations for his actions, claiming he did not remember pleading guilty to the charges and asserting that he had complied with all legal requirements. However, the administrative judge found the applicant's testimony lacking in credibility, noting that he had not taken full responsibility for his actions and remained on probation for the 2020 incident.
The administrative judge ultimately ruled against the applicant, affirming the DoD's decision to deny the security clearance. The judge's conclusion was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation and his lack of candor regarding his criminal history. The appeal board upheld the judge's decision, stating that the judge had properly considered all relevant factors and applied the mitigating conditions in a fair manner.
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. 22-01851

May 21, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A 44-year-old retired military noncommissioned officer was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's admitted criminal conduct, specifically arrests in 2013 and 2020.

The administrative judge determined that the applicant lacked credibility and minimized his culpability regarding these incidents. Disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 15 and 16 were raised.

The denial was ultimately based on the applicant's admissions of criminal conduct, the judge's finding that he was not credible and minimized his actions, and the fact that he remains on probation with a suspended sentence until September 2025. The unfavorable decision was affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 16raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 14, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 27, 2024
Decision dateMay 21, 2024Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Credibility Determinations in Security Clearance Cases
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Rebuttable Presumption of Judicial Impartiality

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 security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E and J related to the applicant's criminal conduct. The applicant challenged the Judge's findings and alleged bias. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged that the Judge was biased against him and mischaracterized his arrests.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
Applicant argued that the Judge erroneously referred to him as being 'convicted' in the assault case.
Credibility determination — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant challenged the Judge's credibility determination.

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 properly considered all relevant issues and applied the mitigating conditions in a fair and neutral manner. The Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and any errors identified were deemed harmless as they did not affect the outcome of the case.

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.