CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00850 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00850

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/17/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00850) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined that the applicant's immediate family members, including a father, stepmother, brother, and two stepbrothers, were citizens and residents of Mexico. Additionally, it was alleged that the applicant's spouse was an undocumented Mexican citizen residing in the U.S., and that the applicant had financial ties to a brother who had been deported for drug-related offenses.
In response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to the allegations but provided explanations and requested a decision based on the written record. The applicant did not submit any objections or additional information after receiving the Government's File of Relevant Material. On appeal, the applicant sought reconsideration of the decision, presenting new evidence in the form of recommendation letters from managers attesting to the applicant's work ethic and integrity. However, the Appeal Board noted that it could not consider new evidence and affirmed the administrative judge's decision, concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient mitigation of the security concerns raised.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against 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. 24-00850

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.