A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 24-00928
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 21, 2025 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to three DWI convictions in the past decade. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any errors in the original decision, which was supported by the evidence presented.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to three DWI convictions in the last ten years.
- The appeal did not assert any errors in the judge's decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 25(a) Criminal conductraised
- AG ¶ 21(a) Alcohol consumptionraised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2024-09-17
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2025-05-21
- Decision date
- 2025-07-21
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Multiple DWI Convictions Under Guideline G and J
- Burden of Proof on the Applicant to Assert Errors in the Judge's Decision
- Standard for Granting Clearance Related to National Security Interests
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 the denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant, representing herself, did not assert any specific errors by the Administrative Judge but requested reconsideration based on her work performance. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.
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. 24-00928
)
) 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: July 21, 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 September 17, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal 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 May 21, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge John Bayard Glendon denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Discussion
Under Guideline G and cross-alleged under Guideline J, the SOR alleged that Applicant had been arrested and convicted of driving while intoxicated on three occasions in the last ten years. Applicant admitted all allegations and the Judge found adversely under both Guidelines.
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 on the part of the Judge, but rather requests reconsideration based on her “performance as an employee” and dedication to her employer. Appeal Brief at 1. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and our authority to review a case is limited to matters in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error. The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “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). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b). Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is affirmed.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-00928 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board