CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00243 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00243

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/27/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-00243) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
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 B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined multiple allegations, including the applicant's financial support of family members in Djibouti, his co-ownership of a business there, and claims of falsifying information on security clearance applications regarding his financial activities and unemployment benefits.
In response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to the allegations under Guideline B but denied those under Guideline E and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The administrative judge found against the applicant on several points, including the financial support provided to family members and the unexplained affluence demonstrated by the applicant's financial activities. The judge noted that the applicant's income and expenditures raised significant concerns regarding his eligibility for a security clearance.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, stating that the applicant did not raise any specific claims of error in the judge's ruling. The board emphasized that it does not review cases de novo and cannot consider new evidence presented by the applicant. Consequently, the decision to deny the applicant national security eligibility was upheld.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 22-00243

Aug 27, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance primarily under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on several disqualifying conditions, including AG ¶ 6(a), AG ¶ 16(a), and AG ¶ 20(a).

A key factor in the denial was the applicant's admitted provision of significant financial support to family members residing in Djibouti, which raised concerns regarding foreign influence. Additionally, the applicant was found to have falsified information on multiple security clearance applications, directly supporting the denial under Personal Conduct.

Further contributing to the adverse decision were the applicant's financial activities, which suggested unexplained affluence. The appeal of the denial was unsuccessful, with the original decision affirmed based on the applicant's own admissions and the absence of error in the judge's initial findings.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 6(a)raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedFalsification
AG ¶ 20(a)raisedUnexplained Affluence

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 2, 2025
Answer filedJan 29, 2025Amendment to SOR requested.
Hearing heldJun 26, 2025
Decision dateAug 27, 2025Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Impact of Falsification on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline E
Consideration of Unexplained Affluence in Financial Conduct Evaluations 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 involved a denial of security clearance for the applicant based on concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant admitted to some allegations but denied others. On appeal, the applicant did not assert any specific harmful errors but submitted new evidence, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGatha LaFaye — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged no specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision, and the applicant did not raise any specific claims of error. The decision was affirmed based on the existing record and the applicant's failure to demonstrate any harmful error.

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
Jennifer I. Goldstein

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.