CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00336 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00336

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/19/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00336) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Catherine M. Engstrom, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied due to concerns under multiple adjudicative guidelines, specifically Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined various allegations, including multiple arrests for offenses such as possession of a controlled substance, driving under the influence, and probation violations related to alcohol treatment. Additionally, the applicant was accused of falsifying information in response to interrogatories and failing to meet financial obligations, including unpaid taxes and child support.
In response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to the allegations but provided explanations for his actions. The administrative judge acknowledged the applicant's admissions and favorably resolved some of the criminal conduct allegations and a few financial concerns. However, the judge ruled adversely on the majority of the allegations, citing the applicant's extensive criminal history, lack of responsibility, and ongoing financial issues as significant factors undermining his claim of rehabilitation. The judge expressed doubts about the applicant's suitability for national security eligibility, leading to the denial of the security clearance.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, noting that the applicant did not raise any specific claims of error in the appeal. Instead, the applicant requested reconsideration based on personal improvements and aspirations for responsible citizenship. The Appeal Board emphasized that their review was limited to claims of harmful error, which were not presented, thus upholding the original ruling.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Against 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. 24-00336

May 19, 2025· Hon. Catherine M. Engstrom· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of criminal offenses, falsification of information, and significant financial delinquencies.

Specifically, the applicant had multiple criminal offenses, including DUI and possession of a controlled substance. He also falsified responses to interrogatories concerning his alcohol use. Furthermore, the applicant faced significant financial issues, including unpaid taxes and child support arrears.

While the applicant admitted to the allegations and offered explanations, the judge determined there was insufficient evidence of rehabilitation and personal responsibility. This decision was subsequently upheld on appeal, resulting in the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 27raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 28raisedAlcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge favorably resolved some financial concerns totaling approximately $1,500.
AG ¶ 22rejectedCriminal ConductThe judge found the applicant's claims of rehabilitation unconvincing.

Key Rule Quoted

“There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.30.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 23, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 27, 2025
Decision dateMay 19, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Evaluation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Consideration of Financial Delinquencies Under Guideline F
Impact of Falsification on Personal Conduct Evaluations Under Guideline E

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 multiple allegations under various guidelines, including criminal conduct and financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any specific harmful errors in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the lower decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Bayard Glendon — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline GGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any specific harmful error on appeal.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not raise any specific claims of harmful error on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
Catherine M. Engstrom

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.