CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00389 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00389

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/13/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00389) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a mid-fifties individual who had held a security clearance for over 20 years. The Department of Defense (DoD) denied his security clearance based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), with an amended allegation under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) cited a significant delinquent debt of approximately $80,300 and multiple arrests for aggravated assault and disorderly conduct.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had a history of financial irresponsibility, including a foreclosure on his home and refusal to pay the outstanding debt. He admitted to being convicted of a felony related to a September 2022 incident involving police officers but denied wrongdoing in other incidents, attributing blame to his wife and the police. The judge determined that the applicant's lack of credibility and refusal to accept responsibility for his actions undermined any mitigating factors. Consequently, the judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that his criminal conduct and financial issues raised significant security concerns that were not mitigated by any evidence presented.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 24-00389

Feb 13, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guidelines F (Financial Considerations), J (Criminal Conduct), and E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from significant delinquent debt and multiple arrests for aggravated assault.

Specifically, the applicant's financial issues included substantial overdue debts, while his criminal record involved several arrests for aggravated assault. These conditions raised concerns under Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19 and AG ¶ 20.

The appeal was ultimately denied because the judges found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility. This assessment raised serious doubts regarding his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the final decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

Decision DateFeb 13, 2025

Cite For

Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Under Scrutiny
Impact of Financial Issues on Security Clearance
Serious Doubts About Reliability Due to Criminal Conduct

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 financial considerations and criminal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge made factual errors, was biased, and misapplied the Whole-Person Concept. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline JGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge made factual errors.
Judge bias or partiality — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that the Judge was biased against him.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserts that the Judge misapplied the Whole-Person Concept.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge did not commit harmful error in his analysis of the evidence and the application of the guidelines.

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
James B. Norman
Allison Marie

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.