CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00026 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 25-00026

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/26/2026
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 25-00026) →
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Aubrey M. De Angelis, Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
In the case of ISCR Case No. 25-00026, the applicant, a male in his mid-20s, sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD) after graduating from university and beginning work for a government contractor. The DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The core allegations involved the applicant's past sexual assaults against his adopted sister when he was 16 and 17 years old, which he admitted to having occurred on four occasions.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had engaged in sexual misconduct with his younger sister, resulting in felony charges. The applicant acknowledged his actions and expressed remorse, completing a deferred judgment program and therapy, which led to the expungement of his record. Testimonies from his parents indicated that the family had worked through the situation, and the victim had shown personal growth. However, the judge's findings were challenged by the government on appeal, which argued that the judge's conclusions were misleading and did not adequately address the severity of the applicant's actions.
Ultimately, the appeal board reversed the administrative judge's decision, citing errors in the judge's factual findings and analysis. The board noted that the judge's conclusions were not supported by the evidence, particularly regarding the reconciliation between the applicant and the victim, and the overall context of the applicant's past conduct.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against 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. 25-00026

Feb 26, 2026· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

This case involves a male applicant in his mid-20s whose security clearance was initially granted but subsequently reversed by an appeal board. The concerns stemmed from past sexual assaults against his adopted sister when he was a teenager, falling under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).

The appeal board determined that the judge's initial findings were misleading and failed to adequately address the severity of the applicant's actions. The board concluded that the applicant's past conduct presented significant security concerns that were not sufficiently mitigated by his subsequent actions or any rehabilitation efforts.

Consequently, the appeal board reversed the decision to grant national security eligibility. The outcome of this case is "None," indicating that the applicant was not granted a security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG DraisedSexual Behavior
AG EraisedPersonal Conduct
AG JraisedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility 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 issuedMar 27, 2025
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateFeb 26, 2026

Cite For

Reversal of Favorable Decision Based on Severity of Past Sexual Conduct
Misleading Findings Regarding Reconciliation with the Victim
Insufficient Mitigation of Security Concerns Related to Criminal Conduct

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

Reversed

The appeal involved a decision by an Administrative Judge granting the applicant a security clearance despite serious past misconduct involving sexual assault. The government appealed, arguing that the Judge's findings were arbitrary and capricious, and the Board agreed, reversing the decision and highlighting significant errors in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline DGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge's findings were arbitrary and capricious, failing to properly consider the severity of the applicant's past conduct.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge made incorrect and misleading factual findings regarding the reconciliation between the applicant and the victim.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge ignored significant evidence regarding the applicant's motivations and the nature of his offenses.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge misapplied the mitigating conditions and failed to articulate a rational explanation for his conclusions.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious, failing to properly consider the severity of the applicant's past conduct and misapplying the mitigating conditions. The Judge's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and did not meet the standard for national security eligibility.

Ignored material evidenceNo rational connection between facts and conclusionMisapplied mitigation

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Jennifer 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.