CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01252 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01252

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/6/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-01252) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined multiple arrests for domestic violence against his girlfriend, which included serious charges such as felony Malicious Wounding and Attempted Strangulation. The applicant was administratively separated from the military with an Other Than Honorable discharge due to these incidents.
Key facts included the applicant's admissions to various criminal acts, including a guilty plea to brandishing a firearm and domestic assault, resulting in probation and a suspended sentence. He argued that he was on "good behavior" rather than probation, but the administrative judge found that he was indeed on probation until August 2028. The judge noted the applicant's favorable employment record and the absence of recent criminal activity but ultimately ruled against him, citing the seriousness of his past offenses and his lack of candor during the hearing.
The administrative judge affirmed the denial of the security clearance, stating that the applicant's criminal history was too recent and serious to mitigate. The judge emphasized that any doubts regarding national security eligibility must be resolved in favor of national security, leading to the conclusion that the applicant did not meet the necessary standards for clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Withdrawn
- 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. ISCR Case No. 23-01252

Nov 6, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A male applicant in his mid-20s was denied a security clearance primarily under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), with Guideline F (Financial Considerations) also noted. The denial was based on multiple serious criminal offenses, specifically domestic violence charges involving stabbing and strangulation of a domestic partner. These crimes were recent, with the applicant remaining on probation until 2028.

The judge found the applicant lacked credibility during the hearing, which undermined his claims of rehabilitation. Despite some favorable character evidence presented, the judge concluded that the severity and recency of the criminal conduct, combined with the applicant's lack of candor, were too significant to mitigate.

Consequently, the judge affirmed the denial of the security clearance, citing the serious nature of the criminal history and the ongoing probation as key factors.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(c)appliedCriminal ConductThe applicant's serious criminal conduct raised significant security concerns.

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 issuedAug 11, 2023
Answer filednull
Hearing heldnull
Decision dateNov 6, 2024Decision affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Serious Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Issues of Credibility Affecting Security Clearance
Ongoing Probation as a Disqualifying Factor

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 criminal conduct and financial considerations. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in finding he would remain on probation until 2028 and challenged the credibility determinations made by the Judge. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge incorrectly found that Applicant will remain on probation through 2028.
Credibility determination — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's finding of inconsistent statements damaged Applicant's credibility.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's overall conclusions were arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge did not commit harmful error in the decision-making process.

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
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.