CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00844 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00844

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/21/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00844) →
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 was a mid-forties individual with a background in security, seeking a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) raised concerns under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The core allegations included a history of mental health issues, specifically schizophrenia, as well as incidents of aggressive behavior leading to legal actions against him.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had a documented history of psychological conditions, including involuntary hospitalization and a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The applicant admitted to some erratic behavior but attributed it to personal circumstances rather than mental health issues. He denied the diagnoses and claimed to have improved since then, yet he had not sought any recent mental health treatment or complied with prescribed medications. The judge noted that the applicant's behavior, including aggressive incidents and a lack of insight into his mental health, supported the concerns raised in the SOR.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, affirming that the evidence substantiated the disqualifying conditions under Guideline I. The judge concluded that no mitigating factors applied, as the applicant had not demonstrated a resolution of his mental health issues or provided evidence from a mental health professional to support his claims of stability. The decision was affirmed on appeal, with the judge emphasizing the importance of national security considerations in the evaluation of the applicant's eligibility.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline IPsychological Conditions · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · For 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. 24-00844

Nov 21, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A mid-forties single male with a high school education and two decades of security experience was denied a security clearance. The denial was based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline I (Psychological Conditions), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The judge's decision, later affirmed on appeal, primarily cited the applicant's psychological conditions and criminal conduct as the basis for the unfavorable outcome.

Specifically, the applicant had a history of involuntary hospitalization for schizophrenia and exhibited erratic behavior. Disqualifying conditions under Guideline I included a diagnosis of a mental health condition that could impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness, and a failure to follow treatment. The judge found that these psychological conditions were not mitigated due to the applicant's lack of current mental health treatment and his failure to accept his mental health issues.

The applicant's behavior, which included delusions and aggressive actions, raised significant concerns regarding his judgment and reliability, further contributing to the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 28(a)raisedBehavior That Casts Doubt on Judgment, Stability, Reliability, or Trustworthiness
AG ¶ 28(b)raisedOpinion by a Qualified Mental Health Professional Indicating Impairment
AG ¶ 28(c)raisedVoluntary or Involuntary Inpatient Hospitalization
AG ¶ 28(d)raisedFailure to Follow a Prescribed Treatment Plan

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 issuedAug 26, 2024
Answer filednull
Hearing heldnull
Decision dateNov 21, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Psychological Conditions Under Guideline I
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Lack of Mitigating Conditions for Psychological Issues Affecting Judgment and Reliability

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 psychological conditions, criminal conduct, and personal conduct. The Applicant argued that he was misdiagnosed and that his erratic behavior was due to external factors. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and substantial evidence supporting the denial.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline IGuideline JGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that he was misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found substantial evidence supporting the Judge's conclusions regarding the disqualifying conditions under Guideline I and determined that no mitigating conditions were established. The Judge's analysis was reasonable and well-supported by the evidence.

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
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.