CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00583 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00583

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/21/2025
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-00583) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez, Nicole A. Smith
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a retired U.S. military member in his late forties, currently employed as a safety supervisor for a defense contractor. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to the applicant's involvement in a road rage incident that resulted in charges of Felony Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon. The incident escalated when the applicant confronted another driver and brandished a firearm.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to retrieving his handgun but denied pointing it at the occupants of the other vehicle. He claimed his actions were motivated by a fear for his safety, asserting that he believed the other driver posed a threat. The administrative judge initially ruled in favor of the applicant, finding that his conduct was consistent with self-defense principles and that he had demonstrated successful rehabilitation. However, upon appeal, the Government contested the judge's conclusions, arguing that the findings were not supported by the evidence and that the applicant's actions were reckless rather than defensive. The appeal board ultimately reversed the judge's decision, stating that the applicant's conduct did not align with the standards required for maintaining a security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against 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. 23-00583

Jan 21, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A retired military member in his late forties was initially denied a security clearance due to a road rage incident that resulted in felony charges. This denial was based on Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), citing Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 31(b) and AG ¶ 16(c).

However, the appeal board reversed the initial decision, determining that the judge's conclusions were arbitrary and capricious. The board found that the applicant's actions during the incident were reckless and did not support his claims of self-defense. Furthermore, the judge's findings were not adequately supported by the record evidence.

Despite the application of Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 32(a), AG ¶ 32(d), and AG ¶ 17(c), the applicant's failure to accept responsibility for his actions undermined any claims of rehabilitation. Consequently, the applicant was ultimately denied eligibility for a security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)appliedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)rejectedMitigating CircumstancesThe judge's conclusion that the applicant's conduct was consistent with self-defense was unsupported by evidence.
AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedSuccessful RehabilitationThe applicant's lack of acceptance of responsibility undermined claims of rehabilitation.
AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedMitigating CircumstancesThe judge's findings did not adequately address the disqualifying conduct.

Key Rule Quoted

“There is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.”
— Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 28, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJan 21, 2025Appeal decision

Cite For

Arbitrary and Capricious Findings in Security Clearance Decisions
Self-defense Claims Must Be Substantiated by Evidence
Importance of Accepting Responsibility in Rehabilitation Assessments

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

Reversed

The appeal involved a security clearance eligibility decision granted by an Administrative Judge based on mitigating factors related to a road rage incident involving the Applicant. The Government appealed, arguing that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. The Board found merit in the Government's appeal and reversed the decision, concluding that the Judge's findings were not sustainable under the applicable standards.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoss D. Hyams — granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge's conclusion to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and unsupported by the record evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's findings were arbitrary and capricious, failing to consider important aspects of the case and running contrary to the weight of the record evidence. The Board concluded that a denial of security clearance eligibility was the clear outcome based on the record.

Ignored material evidenceNo rational connection between facts and conclusionCredibility-deference error

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.