CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02709 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02709

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/29/2025
Statusgranted
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02709) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales, Cindy Ruckno
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a defense contractor employee in his late 30s, who sought a security clearance for the first time. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), alleging that the applicant was terminated from his previous employment for misusing a corporate fuel card and that he falsified his security clearance application by not disclosing this termination.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the misuse of the fuel card and acknowledged that he intentionally omitted his termination from his application, believing it would negatively impact his job prospects. He explained that he had repaid the company for the misappropriated funds and expressed remorse for his actions, stating he had learned from the experience. The administrative judge found that while the government established the allegations, the applicant had mitigated the security concerns through his actions and personal growth. The judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that he was unlikely to repeat the misconduct and that he demonstrated reliability and trustworthiness.
On appeal, the government argued that the judge erred in her mitigation analysis and in applying the Whole-Person Concept. However, the appeal board affirmed the judge's decision, stating that her findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that the government did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's analysis.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For 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. 23-02709

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

Summary

This security clearance decision resulted in a GRANTED outcome for the applicant. The case primarily involved allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), specifically concerning the misuse of a corporate fuel card and the subsequent failure to disclose this incident on the applicant's security clearance application.

The applicant, representing himself, successfully demonstrated mitigating factors that led to the favorable decision. Key among these was evidence of significant personal growth since the time of the misconduct. Additionally, the applicant fully repaid the debt incurred due to the misuse of the fuel card.

The appeal board affirmed the decision to grant national security eligibility, citing these mitigating conditions as outlined in Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 20. The board concluded that the demonstrated personal growth and repayment of the debt sufficiently mitigated the initial concerns regarding personal conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20appliedMitigating Condition 1The applicant's repayment of the debt was a significant factor.
AG ¶ 20appliedMitigating Condition 2The applicant's evidence of personal growth contributed to the favorable outcome.

Procedural Posture

Decision DateMay 29, 2025

Cite For

Mitigating Factors Under Guideline E
Personal Growth as a Consideration in Security Clearance Cases
Relevance of Debt Repayment in Security Clearance Evaluations

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 security clearance denial based on allegations of personal conduct. The Administrative Judge initially granted the clearance, but the Government appealed, arguing that the Judge's mitigation analysis was flawed. The Appeal Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in her analysis.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Rejected
The Government contends that the Judge erred in her mitigation analysis under Guideline E and in her Whole-Person analysis.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's analysis was reasonable and supported by the record, and the Government failed to establish harmful error.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
Jennifer 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.