CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00375 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00375

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/14/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00375) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant, a retired military officer in his mid-50s, sought a security clearance after previously holding one during his military career. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons citing security concerns under Guideline M (Use of Information Technology), Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The core allegations included inappropriate use of government technology to engage in sexual communications with foreign nationals and soliciting sexual favors in exchange for money.
Key facts revealed that the applicant accessed social media and personal email through his work computer, where he communicated with multiple women from the Dominican Republic, exchanging sexually explicit photos and planning a trip for sexual encounters. He admitted to sending money to some of these women but denied that it was in exchange for sexual favors. A cybersecurity report confirmed that he violated user agreements by soliciting sexual content and engaging in sexual relations with at least one foreign national while using his work computer.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, affirming that the evidence supported the conclusion that his actions posed a risk to national security. The judge noted that the applicant's behavior demonstrated vulnerabilities to foreign influence and that any doubts regarding national security eligibility must be resolved in favor of national security. The decision was ultimately upheld by the Appeal Board.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline MUse of Information Technology · 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. 24-00375

Jul 14, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A retired military officer in his mid-50s was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The denial was based on the applicant's inappropriate communications with foreign nationals and solicitation of sexual favors.

Specifically, the applicant engaged in sexual communications with foreign nationals and solicited sexual favors while using government technology. He also transmitted explicit images through his work computer. These actions raised significant foreign influence vulnerabilities, leading to the denial.

The appeal of this decision was denied, affirming the original determination. The applicant's actions presented significant security concerns that were not mitigated, resulting in the final denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 14raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 15raisedSexual Behavior
AG ¶ 16raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 17raisedUse of Information Technology

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 2, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 16, 2025
Decision dateJul 14, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Issues of Sexual Behavior Impacting Security Clearance Under Guideline D
Use of Government Technology for Personal Misconduct Under Guideline M

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 concerns under multiple guidelines, including foreign influence and personal conduct. The applicant, representing himself, argued that there were no harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no merit in the appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBryan J. Olmos — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline MGuideline BGuideline DGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged no specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision, which was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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.