CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01200 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 22-01200

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/8/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-01200) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Catherine M. Engstrom, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a man in his late 60s with multiple advanced degrees, who had previously held a security clearance since 1997. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The core allegations included the applicant's long-term viewing of child pornography, use of a company-issued computer for this purpose, and falsification of information during personal subject interviews.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to some past behavior, including viewing child pornography and using inappropriate search terms, but denied intentionally seeking out such material at work. He claimed that previous polygraph examiners misinterpreted his statements. The administrative judge found that the applicant's history of conflicting admissions and denials undermined his credibility. The judge ruled against the applicant on the majority of allegations, concluding that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns due to his lack of acceptance of responsibility for his actions and ongoing vulnerability to coercion.
Ultimately, the administrative judge denied the applicant's request for national security eligibility, citing the established disqualifying conditions under the relevant guidelines and the applicant's failure to demonstrate credible reform or rehabilitation.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline MUse of Information Technology · 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. 22-01200

Aug 8, 2025· Hon. Catherine M. Engstrom· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied for an applicant, a man in his late 60s with multiple advanced degrees, based on concerns under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), J (Criminal Conduct), and M (Use of Information Technology). The denial stemmed from a history of viewing child pornography and the applicant's lack of candor during the investigation.

Specifically, the applicant had a documented history of viewing child pornography spanning from 1988 to 2011. This conduct raised significant national security concerns. Furthermore, the applicant falsified material facts during personal subject interviews and provided conflicting admissions and denials regarding his conduct. These actions severely undermined his credibility, reliability, and trustworthiness.

While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 14(b) and AG ¶ 14(c) were considered, the Administrative Judge ultimately found that the disqualifying conditions, including AG ¶ 13(a), AG ¶ 16(b), and AG ¶ 31(b), outweighed any mitigating factors. The appeal was denied due to the serious national security concerns presented by the applicant's history and his lack of credibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 13(a)appliedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 14(b)rejectedThe Sexual Behavior Happened so Long Ago, so Infrequently, or Under Such Unusual CircumstancesThe applicant's history of conflicting admissions and denials did not support this mitigation.
AG ¶ 14(c)rejectedThe Behavior No Longer Serves as a Basis for Coercion, Exploitation, or DuressThe applicant's past involvement with child pornography continued to make him vulnerable to coercion.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 10, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateAug 8, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Under Guidelines D, E, J, and M
Credibility Issues Related to Falsification of Information
National Security Concerns Arising From Criminal Conduct Involving Child Pornography

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 allegations of sexual behavior, personal conduct, and criminal conduct. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in excluding his private polygraph results and that the Government's polygraph reports did not meet the standard of substantial evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline DGuideline EGuideline JGuideline M

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged that the Judge erred in failing to consider his private polygraph results.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the AGA polygraphers’ reports do not constitute substantial evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the errors alleged by the Applicant did not constitute harmful error.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Andrea M. Corrales, Esq.
Member 2
Member 3

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.