CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00972 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00972

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/17/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00972) →
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 security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined multiple allegations, including four Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) arrests from 1999 to 2021, a 2006 arrest for Criminal Possession of Marijuana, and a 2022 arrest for Driving While License Suspended or Revoked. The applicant admitted to all allegations in his response to the SOR.
The administrative judge found that the applicant's admissions and the evidence presented supported the allegations. Although the applicant claimed to have stopped drinking in July 2022, the judge noted that the applicant's own statements indicated continued alcohol consumption as recently as August 2024. The judge concluded that the applicant had not mitigated the concerns raised and that the evidence warranted a denial of national security eligibility. The appeal board affirmed the judge's decision, stating that the record supported the findings and that the applicant had not established any harmful error in the initial ruling.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal 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. 24-00972

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

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption), J (Criminal Conduct), and E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's admitted history of multiple DWI arrests and other criminal conduct.

The applicant's claims of mitigation were found to be unsupported by the record. Specifically, evidence showed he continued to consume alcohol even after asserting he had ceased. The original decision cited disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 21(a), and AG ¶ 16(a).

Ultimately, the appeal was denied. The judges determined there was no harmful error in the initial decision, concluding that the record adequately supported the denial and provided a satisfactory explanation for the outcome.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 21(a)raisedAlcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedOct 18, 2024
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldAug 6, 2025
Decision dateSep 17, 2025Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Multiple DWI Arrests Under Guideline G
Insufficient Evidence of Mitigation for Alcohol Consumption
Affirmation of Original Decision Without Harmful Error in Factual Findings

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 concerns under Guidelines G, J, and E. The Applicant challenged the Judge's factual findings regarding his alcohol consumption and argued that he had mitigated the allegations. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the decision was supported by the record.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert B. Blazewick — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline JGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant challenges the accuracy of the Judge's factual findings regarding his drinking history.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that he mitigated the Guideline G allegations by stopping drinking in July 2022.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Applicant failed to establish any harmful error. The decision was sustainable on the record, and the Judge provided a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

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
Allison Marie
Jennifer I. Goldstein

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.