CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-02575 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-02575

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/24/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-02575) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under multiple adjudicative guidelines, specifically Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined a history of criminal offenses, including multiple driving while intoxicated (DWI) charges and other criminal activities, as well as significant delinquent debts totaling approximately $44,000.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to several allegations but denied some of the more serious charges, including two DWIs and an assault charge. The administrative judge found that while the applicant had made efforts to address his financial issues and had resolved some debts, these actions were taken only after the SOR was issued. The judge noted the applicant's ongoing legal issues, including a pending court date for driving without insurance, which indicated a lack of compliance with laws. Consequently, the judge ruled against the applicant on the criminal conduct and financial considerations, concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation or responsibility.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, stating that the findings were not arbitrary or capricious and that the judge had adequately weighed the evidence. The Board emphasized that national security interests must take precedence, and any doubts regarding an applicant's eligibility should be resolved in favor of national security.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · For 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. 22-02575

Nov 24, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Administrative Judge found an extensive history of criminal violations, including multiple DWIs and theft. Additionally, the applicant had unresolved debts totaling approximately $44,000, with insufficient evidence of responsible action taken before the Statement of Reasons (SOR) was issued.

While the applicant presented some favorable information under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), these mitigating factors were not sufficient to overcome the disqualifying conditions. Specifically, the judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 21 and AG ¶ 17, but these were outweighed by disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 30 and AG ¶ 20.

Ultimately, the Administrative Judge determined that the applicant's extensive criminal history and ongoing financial issues did not demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation or responsibility, leading to the denial of the appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant was working to resolve some debts but had not addressed all issues.
AG ¶ 17appliedCriminal ConductSome criminal conduct was favorably resolved, but the overall history remained concerning.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 29, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateNov 24, 2025Appeal affirmed with no new evidence considered.

Cite For

Extensive Criminal History Under Guideline J
Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Burden of Proof on Appeal Regarding Claims of Error

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 criminal conduct, personal conduct, alcohol consumption, and financial considerations. The Applicant did not raise any claims of harmful error and sought reconsideration of his case. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBenjamin R. Dorsey — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline EGuideline GGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised no claim of harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and that the record supported the Judge's findings and conclusions.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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.