CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01357 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01357

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/29/2026
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales, Nicole A. Smith
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a mid-30s software engineer who sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) raised security concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology), primarily due to the applicant's long-standing addiction to pornography, which began in his adolescence, and his previous criminal charges related to child pornography. The SOR detailed incidents of illegal content accessed by the applicant and his subsequent termination from employment due to violations of company policy.
The administrative judge found that the applicant admitted to a history of compulsive pornography use, including instances of downloading illegal content, but claimed to have abstained from inappropriate material since 2018. He provided evidence of attending support groups and therapy, but also acknowledged relapses and inconsistencies in his recovery efforts. The judge noted that the applicant's attempts to conceal his online activities and his failure to take full responsibility for his past actions raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns related to his sexual behavior, personal conduct, and use of information technology. The judge's decision was affirmed on appeal, with the findings supported by the applicant's history of behavior and the ongoing risks associated with his addiction. The judge's analysis indicated that the applicant's past conduct and lack of consistent recovery efforts made it unlikely that similar issues would not recur in the future.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline MUse of Information Technology · 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. 23-01357

Jan 29, 2026· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A mid-30s software engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The denial stemmed from a compulsive pornography addiction that resulted in legal issues and the termination of his employment.

Key disqualifying conditions included the applicant's long-standing addiction to pornography and past criminal charges related to child pornography. These factors were deemed critical in the adverse decision.

Despite the applicant acknowledging his addiction and attempting rehabilitation, the appeal board found insufficient evidence to mitigate the security risks. Consequently, the board affirmed the denial, concluding that the presented information did not adequately address the concerns under the cited guidelines.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 13(b)raisedCompulsive, Self-destructive, or High-risk Sexual BehaviorThe applicant's admitted addiction resulted in compulsive and concerning behaviors.
AG ¶ 16(e)(1)raisedPersonal Conduct Affecting StandingThe applicant's behavior could affect his personal and community standing.

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 issuedJan 23, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 1, 2025
Decision dateJan 29, 2026Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Compulsive Sexual Behavior Under Guideline D
Impact of Past Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation in Cases of Addiction

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 Guidelines D, E, and M related to the Applicant's history of pornography addiction and criminal conduct. The Applicant appealed the adverse findings, while the Government cross-appealed the favorable findings. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, reversing only the favorable finding regarding the Applicant's addiction, citing a lack of rational connection in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed byboth parties

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline DGuideline EGuideline M

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge mischaracterized his intention in attempting to install software to block access to pornography.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Government contended that the Judge failed to apply relevant disqualifying conditions regarding Applicant's compulsive pornography addiction.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Government argued that the Judge's favorable finding regarding Applicant's compulsive pornography addiction was arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's adverse findings regarding the Applicant's criminal conduct and termination, but reversed the favorable finding related to the Applicant's compulsive pornography addiction due to a failure to apply relevant disqualifying conditions.

No rational connection between facts and conclusion

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.