CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01853 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01853

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/2/2025
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-01853) →
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: William H. Miller, Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a woman in her late 20s, married with children, who had served in the U.S. military and was seeking a security clearance after previously being granted one in 2019. The Department of Defense (DoD) raised security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) due to her history of alcohol use disorder, multiple hospitalizations for suicidal ideation, and lack of insight into her alcohol-related issues. The Statement of Reasons outlined her significant alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, subsequent treatment for alcohol use disorder, and relapses that included suicide attempts.
The applicant admitted to her past alcohol use and the associated mental health challenges, including anxiety and depression, but claimed to be in remission and had not consumed alcohol since January 2022. She provided evidence of her ongoing treatment, including therapy and participation in Alcoholics Anonymous, and demonstrated improvements in her personal and professional life, including completing her college degree and receiving positive evaluations at work.
The administrative judge initially ruled in favor of the applicant, granting her national security eligibility. However, upon appeal, the Government contended that the judge failed to adequately analyze the evidence and apply the mitigating conditions appropriately. The appeal board agreed with the Government's position, stating that the judge's findings were not sufficiently supported by the record, leading to a reversal of the initial decision.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Against Applicant
- Guideline IPsychological Conditions · 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. 23-01853

Jul 2, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance appeal board reversed an initial favorable decision for an applicant, a married woman in her late twenties with a military background. The case involved concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions).

Disqualifying conditions G2 and I1 were raised, pertaining to the applicant's history of alcohol use disorder and psychological issues. While mitigating conditions G2 and I3 were applied, the appeal board found that the judge failed to adequately analyze significant record evidence and made unsupported factual findings regarding the applicant's credibility and treatment history.

Ultimately, the board determined the judge did not properly apply the mitigating conditions or the Whole-Person Concept. As a result, the appeal board did not issue a final clearance decision, instead remanding the case for further proceedings.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G2raisedAlcohol Consumption
I1raisedPsychological Conditions

Mitigating

G2rejectedRehabilitationThe judge did not adequately consider the applicant's treatment history and ongoing issues.
I3rejectedDemonstrated StabilityThe judge failed to recognize the applicant's ongoing psychological challenges and inconsistencies in her statements.

Key Rule Quoted

“A clearance may be granted only when 'clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.'”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 19, 2023
Answer filedSep 8, 2021
Hearing held—Initial decision granted by Judge Marc E. Curry.
Decision dateJul 2, 2025Appeal decision reversed the initial ruling.

Cite For

Reversal of Favorable Ruling Due to Inadequate Analysis of Evidence
Failure to Apply Mitigating Conditions Under Guidelines G and I
Credibility Issues Impacting the Assessment of Psychological Conditions.

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 the Department of Defense's challenge to an Administrative Judge's decision granting the Applicant national security eligibility based on concerns related to alcohol consumption and psychological conditions. The Government argued that the Judge failed to properly analyze significant evidence and made unsupported factual findings. The Appeal Board agreed, finding the Judge's decision arbitrary and capricious, and reversed the decision, denying the Applicant's security clearance.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline I

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge failed to completely analyze significant record evidence and made factual findings that were unsupported by the record.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious as it failed to examine relevant evidence and important aspects of the case, failed to articulate a satisfactory explanation for material conclusions, and ran contrary to the weight of the record evidence.

Ignored material evidenceNo rational connection between facts and conclusion

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
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.