Loading case…

ISCR 22-02129: Guideline B security clearance appeal, denied (2026) · CASE

ISCR Case 22-02129denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-02129

Feb 11, 2026· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to disclose significant foreign associations and financial transactions.

Specifically, the applicant did not disclose family and friends residing in China. Furthermore, the applicant intentionally concealed financial transactions totaling approximately $350,000, which were transferred from China to the U.S.

Despite the consideration of mitigating conditions AG ¶ 8(a), AG ¶ 8(b), AG ¶ 8(c), and AG ¶ 17(c), the judges found these unpersuasive. Ultimately, no mitigating factors were found sufficient to support granting a security clearance, leading to the denial of the appeal.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline BraisedForeign Influence
Guideline EraisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedNature of Relationships with Foreign PersonsThe judge found the relationships significant enough to warrant concealment.
AG ¶ 8(b)rejectedConflict of InterestThe applicant's concealment indicated a potential conflict of interest.
AG ¶ 8(c)rejectedCasual and Infrequent ContactThe applicant's relationships were deemed significant and not casual.
AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedMinor Offense or Unique CircumstancesThe applicant's repeated falsifications were not limited to a unique time period.

Key rule quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedJun 6, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateFeb 11, 2026Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite for

Failure to Disclose Foreign Associations Under Guideline B
Intentional Concealment of Financial Transactions Under Guideline E
Standards for Evaluating Mitigating Conditions in Security Clearance Cases

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 foreign influence and personal conduct concerns. The Applicant argued that the Judge failed to properly weigh evidence and consider mitigating factors. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowWilford H. Ross denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge properly considered all relevant issues and applied the mitigating conditions appropriately, affirming 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 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. 22-02129

)

) 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: February 11, 2026

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Nekeisha Campbell, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 6, 2024, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal 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 December 2, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline B, the SOR alleged that Applicant had an uncle, an aunt, and four friends who were citizens and residents of China. Under Guideline E, the SOR alleged that Applicant deliberately failed to report those Chinese associations both to her security office and during separate interviews with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Office of Naval Intelligence, and the Defense Intelligence Agency. She also failed to report to the FBI that one Chinese contact assisted her in moving about $350,000 from China to the United States. 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 and foreign influence were unmitigated. Consistent with the following, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Applicant argues that the Judge failed to give proper weight to record evidence and that he failed to consider applicable mitigating factors. “Applicant has the ultimate burden, once the Government has established a prima facie case against him, of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).1 Applicant contends she met that burden. Specifically, Applicant asserts under Guideline B that the Judge failed to properly analyze evidence in support of mitigating conditions AG ¶¶ 8(a), 8(b), and 8(c).2 In the Judge’s analysis of the mitigating conditions, he relied upon Applicant’s intentional concealment of her six Chinese contacts as evidence that her relationships with those individuals were important enough to her to cause her to lie to agents of the U.S. government in multiple interviews. As a result, the Judge gave little weight to her claims in support of mitigation. Under Guideline E, Applicant argues that the Judge failed to properly apply mitigating condition AG ¶ 17(c).3 Specifically, Applicant asserts that her “questionable actions” occurred “during a finite period of time when her father passed away in 2015.” Appeal Brief at 6. However, her repeated falsifications were not limited to 2015 but persisted through at least 2019. 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 1 Applicant also contends that the Government failed to present evidence to show the mitigating conditions were not applicable. Appeal Brief at 6, 9. However, Applicant misplaces the burden of proof with respect to mitigation. 2 AG ¶¶ 8: (a) the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the United States; (b) there is no conflict of interest, either because the individual's sense of loyalty or obligation to the foreign person, or allegiance to the group, government, or country is so minimal, or the individual has such deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the United States, that the individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest; and (c) contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual and infrequent that there is little likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign influence or exploitation. 3 AG ¶ 17: (c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.

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 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 her 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. 22-02129 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