CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00609 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00609

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/29/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00609) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD), which was denied based on concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had family members in Iraq, some of whom had connections to the Iraqi government, raising potential security risks.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to all allegations outlined in the SOR. The administrative judge found against the applicant on six allegations but ruled in favor on two others. The applicant argued on appeal that the judge made factual errors and did not adequately weigh the evidence in relation to mitigating conditions. However, the appeal board noted that the applicant's claims did not challenge specific factual findings and were largely a disagreement with the judge's conclusions.
The administrative judge's decision was affirmed, as the appeal board found that the judge's factual findings and conclusions were well-supported by the record. The board emphasized that the judge had appropriately considered the evidence and articulated a rational connection between the facts and the decision made, ultimately concluding that the applicant's circumstances posed an unmitigated security concern.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · 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. 24-00609

Jan 29, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to family ties in Iraq. The applicant admitted to allegations of foreign influence stemming from these family members.

The appeal board reviewed the case and affirmed the denial. They concluded that the original judge's findings were fully supported by the evidence presented in the record.

Ultimately, the board determined that the denial of the security clearance was consistent with national security interests, upholding the initial decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG B1raisedForeign Influence

Key Rule Quoted

“The findings were supported by the record and consistent with national security interests.”

Procedural Posture

Decision DateJan 29, 2025

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Importance of Evidence Supporting National Security Interests in Clearance Decisions
Role of Appeal Boards in Reviewing Judge's Findings and Decisions

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 foreign influence concerns related to the Applicant's family in Iraq. The Applicant appealed, alleging factual errors and improper weighing of evidence. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPamela C. Benson — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleges that the Judge did not appropriately weigh the facts relative to the Mitigating Conditions and whole-person analysis.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant broadly alleges that the Judge made factual errors but does not challenge any specific factual findings.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Judge's factual findings and conclusions were supported by the record and that the Judge adequately addressed the Applicant's circumstances. The Board concluded that the Applicant's Iraqi relatives posed an unmitigated security concern, and the Judge's weighing of the evidence was not arbitrary or capricious.

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
James B. Norman

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.