CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00278 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00278

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/14/2026
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00278) →
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a mid-40s individual who served in the U.S. military from 2009 to 2013 and subsequently worked as a linguist for various defense contractors. The Department of Defense (DoD) denied him a security clearance based on allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) included claims of misconduct during his employment with Company A, his termination due to poor performance, and allegations of falsifying information on security clearance applications.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had been terminated from Company A for unsatisfactory performance and inappropriate behavior, including making unwelcome advances toward a female military member. The applicant admitted to being fired but provided various explanations for his termination, which the judge deemed insufficient and misleading. The judge concluded that the applicant had deliberately falsified information on his security clearance applications and did not demonstrate any mitigating factors that would warrant a favorable decision.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, affirming that the evidence supported the conclusion that he had failed to provide truthful information during the security clearance process. The appeal board upheld this decision, stating that the applicant's lack of candor and failure to accept responsibility for his actions were significant concerns that justified the denial of his security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal 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. 24-00278

Jan 14, 2026· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A mid-40s former military linguist was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to multiple instances of misconduct, including falsification of information on security clearance applications and serious personal conduct issues. The appeal board upheld the denial, citing insufficient evidence of mitigating factors and the applicant's failure to accept responsibility for his actions.

Disqualifying conditions raised included allegations under AG ¶ 16(a) and AG ¶ 16(b). While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 17(a), AG ¶ 17(c), AG ¶ 17(d), and AG ¶ 17(e) were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide truthful and complete information during the national security eligibility process. His explanations for his termination and falsifications were found to be untrue and unsupported by the record. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate prompt, good-faith efforts to correct his omissions or falsifications.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(a)rejectedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the OmissionThe applicant did not demonstrate prompt efforts to correct his omissions.
AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedMinor Offense or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's falsifications were not considered minor.
AG ¶ 17(d)rejectedAcknowledgment of Behavior and CounselingThe applicant failed to accept responsibility for his actions.
AG ¶ 17(e)rejectedPositive Steps to Reduce VulnerabilityThe applicant did not take positive steps to address his 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.’”
— Dept. of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 6, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 16, 2025
Decision dateJan 14, 2026Appeal decision

Cite For

Failure to Provide Truthful Information Under Guideline E
Insufficient Evidence of Mitigating Factors in Personal Conduct Cases
Importance of Accepting Responsibility for Past Actions in Security Clearance Determinations

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 allegations of personal conduct under Guideline E. The Applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider all evidence and misapplied mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis of the Applicant's credibility and the application of disqualifying conditions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowBenjamin R. Dorsey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge erred in failing to consider all evidence and not properly applying the mitigating conditions and Whole-Person Concept.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

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
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.