CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01450 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01450

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/1/2025
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-01450) →
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrew H. Henderson, Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
the Department of Defense (DoD) denied the applicant, a 59-year-old male with a bachelor's degree in aeronautics and a military background, a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant financially supported a long-term girlfriend in Thailand and had a history of inappropriate workplace behavior, including being terminated from a previous contractor position due to conflicts with coworkers.
The applicant admitted to providing financial support to his girlfriend, with varying amounts reported, and acknowledged past incidents of inappropriate behavior at work, including bringing a target practice silhouette and a sword to the office. He denied any sexual relations with other foreign nationals and claimed that his relationship with his girlfriend was reported to his employer's security office. The administrative judge initially ruled in favor of the applicant, granting him national security eligibility, but the government appealed the decision.
The appeal board reversed the judge's ruling, citing the heightened risk associated with the applicant's ties to a foreign national in a country with potential security concerns. The board emphasized the applicant's inconsistent statements regarding his relationship and financial support, as well as the pattern of inappropriate conduct in the workplace, which raised doubts about his reliability and judgment in handling classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal 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. 23-01450

Jul 1, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A 59-year-old male applicant with an aeronautics and military background was initially denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Disqualifying conditions were raised regarding his financial support for a long-term girlfriend in Thailand and incidents of inappropriate workplace behavior.

The administrative judge's initial decision was based on these concerns, specifically citing the applicant's financial support for a foreign national and his history of workplace conflicts. However, the appeal board found that the administrative judge failed to adequately consider the geopolitical risks associated with Thailand and the nature of the applicant's relationship with his girlfriend.

Ultimately, the appeal board reversed the initial denial, concluding that the administrative judge's findings were arbitrary and not sufficiently supported by the evidence. Mitigating conditions were applied, leading to an outcome where no security clearance denial was upheld.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign National Creates Heightened Risk
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedPotential Conflict of Interest Due to Foreign Connections
AG ¶ 7(f)raisedFinancial Interests in a Foreign Country
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information Indicating Questionable Judgment
AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse Information Not Covered by Other Guidelines

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedNature of Relationships Unlikely to Create Conflict of InterestThe judge minimized the nature of the applicant's relationship with his girlfriend.
AG ¶ 8(b)rejectedNo Conflict of Interest Due to Minimal Loyalty to Foreign PersonThe applicant's ties to the U.S. were not sufficiently established.
AG ¶ 8(c)rejectedCasual and Infrequent Contact with Foreign CitizensThe applicant maintained daily contact with his girlfriend.
AG ¶ 8(e)rejectedPrompt Reporting of Foreign ContactsThe applicant did not report his relationship with his girlfriend to prior employers.

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 issuedAug 22, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJul 1, 2025Decision reversed on appeal.

Cite For

Reversal of Administrative Judge's Decision Due to Arbitrary and Capricious Reasoning
Significant Security Concerns Arising From Financial Support of Foreign Nationals
Importance of Geopolitical Context in Assessing Foreign Influence Risks

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 decision by an Administrative Judge granting the Applicant a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Government appealed, arguing that the Judge's findings were arbitrary and not supported by the evidence. The Board reversed the decision, finding that the Judge failed to properly assess the risks associated with the Applicant's relationship with a foreign national and did not adequately apply the relevant disqualifying conditions.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge's application of the Guideline B mitigating conditions, Guideline E mitigating conditions, and analysis under the Whole-Person Concept were arbitrary and capricious.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge failed to identify which disqualifying conditions were applicable to the Applicant's relationship with his girlfriend.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge minimized the nature of Applicant's relationship with his girlfriend and failed to consider the security significance of the heightened risk associated with Thailand.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's analysis was flawed as it did not adequately assess the heightened risk associated with the Applicant's foreign relationship and failed to apply the appropriate disqualifying conditions. The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence and were arbitrary and capricious.

No rational connection between facts and conclusionIgnored material evidenceMisapplied mitigation

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Andrew H. Henderson, Esq.
Andrea M. Corrales, Esq.
Samir Nakhleh, Esq.

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.