Loading case…

ISCR 24-00850: Guideline B security clearance appeal, denied (2025) · CASE

ISCR Case 24-00850denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-00850

Nov 17, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from admitted allegations concerning her family ties in Mexico and her spouse's undocumented status.

Specifically, the applicant acknowledged the disqualifying conditions raised under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 6(a) and 15. On appeal, the applicant did not present specific claims of error regarding the initial decision.

Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial, as new evidence submitted by the applicant was not considered, and no specific errors were identified in the original determination.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 6(a)raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key rule quoted

“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.

Procedural posture

SOR issuedOct 17, 2024
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
Hearing heldSep 2, 2025
Decision dateNov 17, 2025Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of security clearance.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski (Chair)
Jennifer I. Goldstein
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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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