Loading case…

ISCR 24-01297: Guideline D security clearance appeal, denied (2025) · CASE

ISCR Case 24-01297denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-01297

Jul 8, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). These concerns stemmed from a history of personal conduct violations and a lack of candor.

Specifically, the applicant's employment was terminated for violating company policy and engaging in unprofessional conduct. Furthermore, the applicant falsified his security clearance application by failing to disclose significant incidents, including a criminal charge and a civil court action.

The judge determined that the applicant's conduct remained unmitigated, despite the applicant's assertions of positive changes. Consequently, the appeal was denied, affirming that the applicant's conduct did not meet the necessary standards for national security eligibility.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ E2.A1.raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ J1.raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ D1.raisedSexual Behavior

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 8, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJul 8, 2025Appeal decision

Cite for

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Falsification of Application Under Guideline E
Impact of Employment Termination on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline E
Unmitigated Personal Conduct Leading to Adverse Security Clearance Decision Under Multiple Guidelines.

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 multiple guidelines. The Applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider relevant evidence and mitigating factors. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowJohn B. Glendon denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline JGuideline D

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider all relevant evidence and did not give proper weight to record evidence.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that the Judge failed to consider applicable mitigating factors.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered all relevant evidence and properly applied the mitigating conditions, affirming the denial of 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 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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: ) ) ) --------------- ) ISCR Case No. 24-01297 ) ) 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 8, 2025

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Grant Couch, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 8, 2024, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline D (Sexual Behavior) 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 2, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge John B. Glendon denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline E, the SOR alleges that Applicant’s employment was terminated in May 2021 for violations of company policy, misuse of company property, and unprofessional conduct (SOR ¶ 1.d). Additionally, the SOR alleges that Applicant falsified his April 2023 security clearance application (SCA) for not reporting: his 2021 termination (SOR ¶1.a); his March 2023 charge of Battery (SOR ¶ 1.b); and his 2021 civil court action (SOR ¶ 1.c). The March 2023 Battery charge was alleged independently under Guideline J (SOR ¶ 2.a), and the civil court action was alleged under sexual behavior (SOR ¶ 3.a). The Judge found against Applicant on all of the

allegations. Our review of the Judge’s decision confirms that he considered all relevant issues and properly applied the mitigating conditions in concluding that Applicant’s personal conduct, criminal conduct, and sexual behavior concerns were unmitigated. Consistent with the following, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Applicant argues that the Judge failed to consider all relevant evidence submitted by Applicant, that he failed to give proper weight to record evidence, and that he failed to consider applicable mitigating factors. Appeal Brief at 5-8. Specifically, Applicant asserted the Judge failed to consider “positive steps” such as Applicant’s “exemplary employment record, glowing letters of recommendation,” and the passage of time since his last incident. Id. A judge’s decision can be arbitrary or capricious if: it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference of opinion. See ISCR Case No. 95-0600, 1996 WL 480993 at *3 (App. Bd. May 16, 1996) (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)). However, “[a]nanalysis that merely is considered inadequate in the eyes of a party does not equate to an analysis that is arbitrary and capricious.” ISCR Case No. 23-01559 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 16, 2024). “Unless a Judge’s weighing of the record evidence is patently absurd, clearly illogical, or obviously unreasonable, the appealing party must present a cogent reason or argument as to how or why the Judge’s weighing of the record evidence is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” ISCR Case No. 03-05072 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 14, 2005). Here, Applicant’s brief advocates for an alternative weighing of the evidence under the applicable mitigating conditions and the Whole-Person Concept but fails to demonstrate error. An applicant’s “disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). Moreover, Applicant’s arguments fail to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. We have considered the entirety of the arguments contained in his appeal brief. The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. His conclusions and adverse decision are 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).

ORDER

The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-01297 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer Goldstein Jennifer Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board