CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00525 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00525

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/12/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-00525) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a network engineer in his early 50s, who had held a security clearance since 2001 and was employed as a senior network engineer and information security systems officer. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The core allegation involved the unauthorized installation of a web browser developed by a Chinese company on his work computer, which led to his termination in June 2018 after it was discovered that data was being diverted to servers in China.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to installing the unauthorized browser but claimed that no derogatory issues were flagged during its use. He explained that his choice was based on personal preferences for convenience. The administrative judge acknowledged the applicant's lack of prior misconduct and his subsequent rehire by the same employer in 2022. However, the judge emphasized the severity of the applicant's actions, particularly given his role in data security, and concluded that the nature of the misconduct outweighed the mitigating factors, including the time elapsed since the incident.
Ultimately, the administrative judge denied the applicant's security clearance eligibility, stating that the applicant's actions could have led to a security breach and that the six and a half years without similar incidents were insufficient to demonstrate reform or rehabilitation. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, finding that the judge had adequately examined the evidence and articulated a rational basis for the ruling.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For 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. ISCR Case No. 23-00525

Mar 12, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A security clearance for a senior network engineer in his early 50s was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The primary concern stemmed from the applicant's unauthorized installation of a browser in 2018, which diverted data to China and led to his termination. This action was considered a serious security risk, particularly given his professional responsibilities in data security.

Although the applicant was rehired in 2022 and reported no further incidents, the judges found insufficient evidence of reform or rehabilitation. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 31 were raised, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 41(a) were applied.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied. The judges emphasized the gravity of the applicant's past misconduct and concluded that his claims of good standing in his current role did not adequately demonstrate the necessary level of reform to mitigate the initial security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31raisedUse of Information Technology

Mitigating

AG ¶ 41(a)rejectedMitigating CircumstancesThe judges concluded that the passage of time since the misconduct was insufficient to demonstrate reform or rehabilitation.

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 30, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateMar 12, 2025Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Reform or Rehabilitation Under Guideline M
Seriousness of Misconduct in Data Security Roles
Rejection of Mitigating Circumstances Based on the Nature of the Conduct

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 concerned the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and misuse of information technology. The applicant argued that he provided sufficient evidence for mitigation but the Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis and conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline M

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that he provided sufficient evidence for a favorable ruling.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined relevant evidence, weighed the disqualifying and mitigating evidence, and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The Judge's findings and conclusions were supported by the record.

Standard of review applied

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

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.