A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 24-00336
Appeal BoardDecided May 19, 2025 · Administrative Judge Catherine M. Engstrom · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct) due to a history of criminal offenses, falsification of information, and significant financial delinquencies. Despite admitting to the allegations and providing explanations, the judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation and responsibility, leading to a denial that was upheld on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had a history of multiple criminal offenses, including DUI and possession of a controlled substance.
- The applicant falsified responses to interrogatories regarding his alcohol use.
- The applicant had significant financial issues, including unpaid taxes and child support arrears.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 30 Criminal Conductraised
- AG ¶ 27 Personal Conductraised
- AG ¶ 28 Alcohol Consumptionraised
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 21 Financial Considerationsapplied
- AG ¶ 22 Criminal Conductrejected
Key rule quoted
“There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2024-08-23
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2025-03-27
- Decision date
- 2025-05-19 Decision 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
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.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
----- )
ISCR Case No. 24-00336
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: May 19, 2025
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 23, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On March 27, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge John Bayard Glendon denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Discussion
Under Guideline J, the SOR alleged that Applicant was arrested for a variety of offenses, including possession of a controlled substance in 2009, simple battery in 2018, driving under the influence in 2011 and twice in 2018, and various probation violations due to his repeated failure to comply with the alcohol treatment conditions of his supervision. All criminal concerns were
cross-alleged under Guideline E and the alcohol-related charges and probation violations were also cross-alleged under Guideline G. The SOR further alleged under Guideline E that Applicant deliberately falsified his response to interrogatories in 2023 and again in 2024, when he asserted incorrect dates for his last alcohol use. Finally, under Guideline F, the SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2017 and 2019 through 2023 and that he carried a child support arrearage of approximately $10,000 and other delinquent consumer, auto, and utility accounts totaling approximately $38,000. In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations with explanation. The Judge favorably resolved the criminal conduct cross-alleged under Guideline E and three of the financial concerns totaling approximately $1,500. The Judge ruled adversely regarding all other allegations, and opined that, Applicant’s total abuse of the court system trying to give him an opportunity to favorably resolve his extensive criminal record evidences a complete lack of responsibility and maturity. His falsifications and delinquent debts also support an unfavorable whole-person evaluation. Applicant claims he is a different person than his criminal record would suggest. His behavior since his last criminal offense in 2018 does not support his claim. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with significant questions and doubts as to Applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility and a security clearance. Decision at 17. 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. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of error on the part of the Judge, but rather requests reconsideration in light of his efforts to improve himself and become “a responsible father, adult, fiancé, and productive member of society.” Appeal Brief at 1. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and our authority to review a case is limited to matters in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error. Applicant has not alleged any such error. Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is affirmed.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-00336 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Catherine M. Engstrom Catherine M. Engstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board