CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02339 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 21-02339

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/28/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 21-02339) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant, a man in his mid-40s with a military background of over 19 years, sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) cited security concerns under multiple adjudicative guidelines, including Guideline D (Sexual Conduct), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The core allegations involved inappropriate sexual comments and unwanted physical contact with a female Sailor, which led to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to making inappropriate comments but denied the allegations of sexual contact. He also faced allegations of seven delinquent debts totaling approximately $32,000, which he attributed to financial strain following his military discharge, claiming he was making progress in resolving these debts. The administrative judge found against the applicant on the allegations under Guidelines D, F, and J, while determining that the Guideline E allegation was duplicative.
On appeal, the applicant reiterated his previous arguments but did not identify any specific harmful errors made by the judge. The Appeal Board noted that it does not review cases de novo and is limited to assessing whether harmful error occurred. As the applicant failed to demonstrate such error, the judge's decision to deny the security clearance was affirmed.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Moot
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 21-02339

Feb 28, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A military veteran in his mid-40s was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant partially admitted to making inappropriate comments but denied any sexual contact.

The denial was based on findings that the applicant made inappropriate sexual comments and touched a female Sailor without consent. Additionally, the applicant had seven delinquent debts, totaling approximately $32,000, which were not sufficiently mitigated. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 24, AG ¶ 15, and AG ¶ 19.

The appeal board upheld the denial, determining that the applicant's arguments were insufficient to demonstrate harmful error in the initial decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 24raisedSexual Conduct
AG ¶ 15raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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 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. 7, 2007)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 19, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 11, 2023
Decision dateFeb 28, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Sexual Misconduct Allegations
Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Issues
Affirmation of Judge's Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Argument

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 was filed by the Applicant after the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals denied his security clearance eligibility based on concerns under multiple guidelines. The Applicant reiterated his arguments but did not allege any specific harmful error. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge, finding no basis for reversal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline DGuideline EGuideline FGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error and that the Judge's decision was sustainable based on the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
James B. Norman

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.