CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01547 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01547

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/19/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01547) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant, a mid-40s individual with a military background and a bachelor's degree, sought a security clearance after being employed as an industrial security representative for a Department of Defense (DoD) contractor. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the DoD raised security concerns under Guideline K (Handing Protected Information) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), primarily alleging that the applicant had engaged in multiple instances of improper security practices and had falsified information during his national security eligibility interview.
The administrative judge found that the applicant admitted to some of the conduct outlined in the SOR, including failing to conduct required security checks and falsifying related records, which led to his termination from the previous position. Although the applicant expressed personal growth and provided explanations for his actions, he did not raise any claims of harmful error on appeal. The judge determined that the applicant's explanations did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns raised.
Ultimately, the Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, concluding that the findings and conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious. The board emphasized that the applicant had not demonstrated that the judge's conclusions were contrary to law and reiterated that national security interests must take precedence in clearance determinations.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline KHandling Protected Information · 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. 24-01547

Nov 19, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The Appeal Board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's improper security practices and falsification of information as key factors.

Specifically, the denial was based on disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 15 and AG ¶ 14. The applicant engaged in improper security practices, demonstrating a failure to properly handle protected information. Additionally, the applicant falsified information during the security clearance process, raising concerns about their personal conduct and trustworthiness.

These actions led to the determination that the applicant did not meet the standards for a security clearance. The Appeal Board concluded that the concerns under both Guideline E and Guideline K were significant enough to warrant the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 14raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

Decision DateNov 19, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Improper Security Practices Under Guideline K
Affirmation of Denial Based on Falsification of Information Under Guideline E
Importance of Personal Conduct in Security Clearance Evaluations

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 whose security clearance was denied based on concerns under Guideline K and Guideline E. The applicant did not raise any claims of harmful error on appeal, instead reiterating his explanations for the alleged conduct. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEric H. Borgstrom — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline KGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised no claim of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and that the record supported the Judge's findings and conclusions.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence review

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.