CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01559 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01559

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/16/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case ISCR Case No. 23-01559) →
Participants
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 Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct) and E (Personal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had been arrested on five occasions and failed to disclose these arrests on his security clearance application. The applicant admitted to the allegations in his response to the SOR.
During the hearing, the applicant acknowledged his past arrests but contested the implications of his conduct. The Administrative Judge found the applicant's criminal and personal conduct to be unmitigated, although he ruled in favor of the applicant regarding alcohol consumption under Guideline G. The judge concluded that the applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate that granting a security clearance would be consistent with national interest, affirming the government's position based on the substantial evidence presented, including the applicant's admissions and testimony. The appeal was subsequently denied, with the Board finding no harmful error in the judge's decision-making process.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · For 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. ISCR Case No. 23-01559

Sep 16, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

The applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial was primarily based on disqualifying conditions related to personal and criminal conduct.

Specifically, the applicant admitted to multiple arrests, which he failed to disclose on his security clearance application. This non-disclosure and the underlying criminal conduct were central to the Administrative Judge's findings.

While mitigating conditions under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) were considered, they did not outweigh the concerns raised by the undisclosed arrests and criminal conduct. The appeal affirmed the denial, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Administrative Judge's decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ JappliedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ EappliedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ GrejectedGeneral Mitigating ConditionsThe judge found in favor under Guideline G, but it was not sufficient to outweigh the disqualifying conditions.

Procedural Posture

Decision DateSep 16, 2024

Cite For

Security Clearance Denial Due to Undisclosed Criminal Conduct
Impact of Multiple Arrests on Security Clearance
Affirmation of Denial Based on Substantial Evidence

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 personal conduct concerns. The applicant argued that the Administrative Judge's decision was arbitrary and failed to consider all evidence. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error and that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline EGuideline G

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Administrative Judge did not consider all the evidence in a comprehensive manner and rendered a decision that was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Administrative Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge properly applied the relevant mitigating conditions. The Board concluded that the Judge's analysis was not arbitrary or capricious and that the decision was consistent with national security interests.

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
Allison Marie
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.