CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00702 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 24-00702

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/25/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00702) →
Participants
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 28-year-old U.S. citizen who had become a naturalized Polish citizen at the age of four. He had lived in Poland since 2006 and maintained various financial interests there, including assets valued at approximately $11,000 and an anticipated inheritance of about $300,000. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), primarily due to his ties to Poland, including his voting in Polish elections and his parents' dual citizenship.
In response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to the allegations but provided explanations. He requested a decision based on the written record and did not contest the Government's File of Relevant Material. The administrative judge found that while some concerns under Guideline C were resolved favorably, the applicant's significant connections to Poland and financial interests raised unmitigated security concerns under Guideline B. The judge concluded that the applicant's divided allegiance and longstanding ties to Poland created a potential conflict of interest, which was not sufficiently mitigated by the applicant's explanations.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, stating that the judge had adequately examined the evidence and articulated a satisfactory rationale for the denial of the security clearance. The Board found no basis to conclude that the judge's findings were arbitrary or contrary to law, emphasizing that any doubts regarding national security eligibility must be resolved in favor of national security interests.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline CForeign Preference · For Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal 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. 24-00702

Feb 25, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A 28-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen was denied a security clearance due to unmitigated foreign influence and financial interests related to Poland. The denial was based on Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).

The applicant's significant ties to Poland, including 18 years of residence and dual citizenship, were central to the adverse decision. Specific disqualifying conditions under Guideline B, paragraphs 7(b) and 7(f), were cited, indicating concerns about foreign financial interests and potential foreign influence.

Although there were favorable findings under Guideline C, the appeal board upheld the denial. The board emphasized that the applicant's longstanding connections and financial stakes in Poland remained unmitigated security concerns, ultimately leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(b)appliedConnections to a Foreign Person, Group, Government, or Country That Create a Potential Conflict of Interest
AG ¶ 7(f)appliedSubstantial Business, Financial, or Property Interests in a Foreign Country

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 9, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested decision based on written record.
Decision dateFeb 25, 2025Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Unmitigated Security Concerns Due to Foreign Financial Interests
Impact of Dual Citizenship on Security Clearance Eligibility
Evaluation of Foreign Ties Under Guideline B

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, foreign preference, and personal conduct. The Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious due to contradictory analyses and failure to weigh evidence properly. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowBenjamin R. Dorsey — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline CGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge provided contradictory analyses and failed to properly consider evidence, rendering the decision arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, affirming the denial of security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference 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.