A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 24-00850
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 17, 2025 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to family ties in Mexico and her spouse's undocumented status. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not raise specific claims of error and new evidence was not considered, leading to the affirmation of the initial denial.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to the allegations regarding family ties to Mexico and the undocumented status of her spouse.
- The applicant did not raise specific claims of error on appeal.
- New evidence submitted by the applicant was not considered by the Appeal Board.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 6(a) Foreign Influenceraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
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
- 2024-10-17
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2025-09-02
- Decision date
- 2025-11-17 Appeal decision affirmed.
Cite for
- Security Concerns Under Guideline B Due to Foreign Influence From Family Ties
- Security Concerns Under Guideline E Related to Personal Conduct and Undocumented Spouse
- Burden of Proof on the Appealing Party to Raise Specific Claims of Error
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 based on foreign influence and personal conduct concerns. The applicant did not assert any specific errors but requested reconsideration and submitted new evidence, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's 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. 24-00850
)
) 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: November 17, 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 October 17, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) 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 September 2, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Discussion
In reaching his decision, the Judge held adversely on the following four SOR allegations. Under Guideline B, the SOR alleged that Applicant’s father, stepmother, brother, and two stepbrothers are citizens and residents of Mexico. Additionally, under Guideline E, the SOR alleged that Applicant’s spouse is a Mexican citizen residing with her in the United States as an undocumented immigrant, and further alleged certain facts regarding Applicant’s relationships
with her brothers, including that she continues to associate with one who was deported to Mexico for selling drugs in the United States and subsequently transferred money to him in Mexico three times at the direction of another brother. In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the foregoing concerns with explanation and requested that her case be decided based on the written record. She received a complete copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material on January 9, 2025, and was notified of her ability to respond with any objections or additional information for the Judge to consider. Applicant did not respond to the FORM. 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, but rather requests reconsideration of the decision, particularly through the lens of the Whole-Person Concept, and provides new evidence in the form of four recommendation letters from current managers that speak highly of Applicant’s work ethic, honesty, and integrity. The Appeal Board, however, is prohibited from considering new evidence and does not review cases de novo. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is affirmed.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-00850 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board