CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02609 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02609

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/29/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02609) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a woman in her early thirties who had served in the U.S. military from 2013 to 2022, receiving a general discharge under honorable conditions for misconduct. The Department of Defense (DoD) denied her security clearance based on allegations under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) related to incidents of child abuse. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailed two incidents: an investigation in 2016 for assault and battery of her infant son and a 2021 arrest for cruelty toward a child, for which she pleaded guilty.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had committed the criminal offenses alleged in the SOR, noting her admission to slapping her son as an infant and her guilty plea in 2021. While the applicant participated in various rehabilitation programs and completed probation, she denied significant aspects of the allegations, including the use of a belt for punishment. The judge concluded that her lack of acceptance of responsibility for her actions indicated a failure to demonstrate rehabilitation. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant, affirming that the evidence of her criminal conduct raised substantial security concerns that were not sufficiently mitigated. The decision was upheld on appeal, with the board finding no bias or procedural errors in the judge's ruling.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For 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. 23-02609

Aug 29, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing themselves, was denied a clearance primarily under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and secondarily under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a guilty plea to a charge of cruelty toward a child, for which adjudication was withheld. This plea raised significant security concerns under Guideline J.

The applicant appealed the denial. The appeal affirmed the initial denial, specifically upholding the judge's findings against the applicant under Guideline J. The judge determined that the applicant's guilty plea for child cruelty was a disqualifying condition (J1) that was not mitigated.

Conversely, the appeal favored the applicant regarding Guideline E, citing insufficient evidence to support findings of bias or arbitrary conclusions. However, the unmitigated concerns under Guideline J ultimately led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J1raisedCriminal Conduct That Creates a Risk to National Security

Mitigating

E2appliedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability to Exploitation, Manipulation, or Duress

Procedural Posture

Decision DateAug 29, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Affirmation of Decision Based on Insufficient Evidence of Bias
Consideration of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E Favorably Despite Criminal Charges

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 based on allegations of criminal conduct and personal conduct. The Applicant appealed the decision, claiming bias and arguing that the Judge's conclusions were arbitrary. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

Judge bias or partiality — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged that the Judge's decision was biased and one-sided.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's conclusions were arbitrary and capricious.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no bias in the Judge's decision and concluded that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The Judge properly considered the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decision

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.