CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01400 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01400

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/12/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01400) →
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 E (Personal Conduct), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had approximately 15 citations or charges related to various offenses, including drug and alcohol use, between 2005 and 2014. Additionally, the applicant was accused of falsifying information regarding her criminal and drug use histories in her security clearance application and subsequent interrogatory response.
In her response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to all allegations without providing further explanation and requested a decision based on the written record. The administrative judge found some favorable aspects regarding the drug-related concerns but ruled adversely on the criminal conduct and related falsifications. The applicant did not contest the judge's findings or assert any errors during the appeal process, instead requesting reconsideration and the opportunity to retain her job. The Appeal Board affirmed the judge's decision, noting that the applicant had not raised any claims of harmful error, and the adverse impact of the decision on her employment was not relevant to the security suitability evaluation.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For 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. ISCR Case No. 24-01400

Aug 12, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance primarily due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). While some issues related to Guideline H (Drug Involvement) were resolved favorably, the overall decision was adverse.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's admission to all allegations, which included drug use and the falsification of information. Specifically, the judge identified disqualifying conditions under Guideline J related to criminal conduct and falsification.

Despite the application of some mitigating conditions, the serious nature of the admitted criminal conduct and falsification led to the denial. The applicant did not raise any claims of error on appeal, and the initial decision to deny the security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20appliedDrug Involvement

Key Rule Quoted

“There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 30, 2024
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision based on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateAug 12, 2025Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Adverse Findings Under Guideline J for Criminal Conduct
Applicant's Admission of Allegations as a Critical Factor
Burden of Proof on the Appealing Party Regarding 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 an Applicant who was denied a security clearance based on concerns under multiple guidelines, including personal conduct and criminal conduct. The Applicant did not assert any specific harmful errors in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the Administrative Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline JGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any specific harmful error on appeal.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not raise any specific claims of harmful error on appeal, and the adverse impact of the eligibility determination on employment was not relevant to the security suitability evaluation.

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.