CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02409 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02409

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/30/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 38-year-old former U.S. military service member who sought a security clearance after being discharged in 2018. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons citing security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline I (Psychological Conditions), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The core allegations included the applicant's history of severe alcohol use disorder, multiple relapses, and psychological conditions, including major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder.
The applicant admitted to a significant history of alcohol abuse and psychological issues, including multiple treatment programs and hospitalizations. He reported a last alcohol consumption date of December 11, 2023, and acknowledged struggles with sobriety. Despite demonstrating some positive changes, such as establishing a support network and participating in counseling, the applicant's lengthy cycle of treatment and relapse raised concerns about his stability and ability to maintain sobriety.
The administrative judge ruled against granting the applicant national security eligibility, stating that the applicant's history of substance abuse and psychological conditions required a more established pattern of abstinence to align with national security interests. The judge recognized the applicant's efforts and favorable prognosis but concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns presented.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For 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. 23-02409

May 30, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, represented in an appeal, was denied clearance under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption), H (Drug Involvement), and I (Psychological Conditions). The primary concerns leading to the denial were the applicant's history of alcohol consumption and psychological conditions.

The applicant acknowledged past issues and underwent treatment. However, the judges determined that the applicant's history of substance abuse and mental health challenges continued to pose a security risk. Disqualifying conditions were raised under AG ¶ 21 and AG ¶ 27, while mitigating conditions were applied under AG ¶ 23 and AG ¶ 28.

The denial was based on the applicant's history of alcohol consumption and psychological conditions being deemed a security risk. The judges emphasized the necessity for a longer period of abstinence and a more comprehensive treatment plan to address these concerns adequately.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 21raisedAlcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 27raisedPsychological Conditions

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23rejectedRehabilitationThe applicant's treatment was insufficient to mitigate the security concerns.
AG ¶ 28rejectedEvidence of ChangeThe applicant did not demonstrate a sufficient change in behavior or circumstances.

Key Rule Quoted

“The security clearance decision must be based on the whole person concept, considering all relevant factors.”

Procedural Posture

Decision DateMay 30, 2025

Cite For

Security Risks Associated with Alcohol Consumption Under Guideline G
Impact of Psychological Conditions on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline I
Requirements for Demonstrating Rehabilitation and Evidence of Change in Security Clearance Cases.

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 for the Applicant based on concerns related to alcohol consumption and psychological conditions. The Applicant argued that the Judge failed to properly analyze evidence and apply mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowEric H. Borgstrom — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline IGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to completely analyze significant record evidence and made factual findings that were unsupported by the record.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to properly apply the mitigating conditions and Whole-Person Concept.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge weighed the disqualifying and mitigating evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on the record. The conclusion that Applicant failed to mitigate the Guideline G and Guideline I security concerns was reasonable based on the evidence presented.

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.