CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00761 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00761

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/27/2025
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 22-00761) →See the appeal decision (Case 22-00761) →See the hearing decision (Case 22-00761) →
Participants
Judge: Catherine M. Engstrom, Moira D. Modzelewski, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Applicant's Counsel: Daniel S. Conway
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a mid-30s lead analyst for a defense contractor who had previously served in the U.S. military. The Department of Defense (DoD) denied him a security clearance based on allegations under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and J (Criminal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had been arrested three times and charged with domestic violence against two ex-wives, with Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) issued in two instances.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the arrests but denied committing the alleged offenses. The administrative judge (AJ) initially found that the government had established possible concerns but later concluded that the government failed to prove its case, stating there was insufficient reliable evidence to support the allegations. The AJ cited mitigating factors, including the lack of corroborative evidence and the applicant's participation in domestic violence intervention classes. The government appealed, arguing that the AJ had erred in his credibility determinations. Ultimately, the Appeal Board reversed the AJ's decision, indicating that the government had indeed established a prima facie case against the applicant.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. ISCR Case No. 22-00761

May 27, 2025· Hon. Catherine M. Engstrom· appeal

Summary

A mid-30s defense contractor with prior military service was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The allegations centered on domestic violence against two former wives. While an Administrative Judge initially granted the clearance, the Appeal Board reversed this decision.

The Appeal Board found that the Administrative Judge did not adequately consider significant evidence of domestic violence. Specifically, the judge's determination of the applicant's credibility was deemed arbitrary because it failed to reconcile with substantial evidence presented by the government. This included critical evidence from the ex-wives' petitions for restraining orders, which detailed multiple acts of abuse.

The Board concluded that the judge ignored this crucial evidence, leading to the reversal. Consequently, no clearance was granted to the applicant.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(a)raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(b)raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(f)appliedUnsubstantiated Information
AG ¶ 32(c)appliedNo Reliable Evidence
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedSuccessful Rehabilitation

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 issuedAug 8, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 11, 2024
Decision dateMay 27, 2025Appeal Board reversed the initial decision.

Cite For

Credibility Determinations in Domestic Violence Cases Under Guidelines E and J
The Importance of Considering All Evidence in Security Clearance Decisions
The Standard of Proof Required in Security Clearance Adjudications

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 security clearance denial based on allegations of domestic violence and personal conduct. The AJ initially granted the clearance but was reversed on appeal due to errors in weighing evidence and credibility determinations. The Board found that the Government had established a prima facie case against the Applicant, leading to the reversal of the AJ's decision.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRobert Tuider — granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The AJ erred in finding that the Government failed to establish a prima facie case.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The AJ's analysis under the disqualifying conditions for Guidelines J and E was arbitrary and capricious.
Credibility determination — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The AJ substituted a favorable credibility determination for significant contrary record evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The AJ's findings were not supported by substantial evidence, and he failed to consider significant evidence of record that established a prima facie case against the Applicant.

Ignored material evidenceNo rational connection between facts and conclusionCredibility-deference error

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Tara Karoian, Esq.
Daniel S. Conway, Esq.

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.