CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01593 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01593

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/30/2025
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-01593) →
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales, Lauren A. Shure
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a male in his early thirties who had previously been granted national security eligibility with Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access. The Department of Defense (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 allegations included the applicant's admission to viewing and downloading pornographic material, including content involving minors and bestiality, as well as concerns regarding his honesty during security interviews.
The applicant admitted to viewing pornographic images and videos from 2007 to 2017, including content he believed depicted underage individuals. He acknowledged downloading a significant amount of pornography, some of which was illegally obtained, and admitted to seeking out bestiality content. However, he denied intentionally viewing child pornography and claimed that any previous admissions made during polygraph interviews were coerced due to the pressure of the questioning. The administrative judge found that the applicant had mitigated the concerns raised by the SOR, concluding that he had not deliberately engaged in illegal activities and had ceased such behaviors in 2017.
On appeal, the Government contested the judge's decision, arguing that the judge had failed to adequately address significant conflicting evidence and had not sufficiently justified the favorable credibility assessment of the applicant. The appeal board ultimately reversed the judge's decision, citing errors in evaluating the evidence and the applicant's credibility, indicating that the judge had not properly considered the implications of the applicant's admissions during the polygraph examinations.
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. ISCR Case No. 23-01593

Jun 30, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, a male in his early thirties, faced security concerns under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct) due to his admissions of viewing and downloading pornographic material, including underage content, and seeking bestiality pornography. The appeal board reversed the favorable decision granting him national security eligibility, citing significant credibility issues and failures to provide truthful information during security investigations.

The judge decided the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 16(b), AG ¶ 15, AG ¶ 14(a). The decision turned on the following: The applicant's credibility was significantly undermined by his repeated failures to provide truthful information during security investigations; The board found the judge's favorable findings unsustainable based on the evidence presented, particularly regarding the applicant's admissions of viewing underage pornography and bestiality; The applicant's explanations for his conduct were deemed unconvincing and not supported by the record evidence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
AG ¶ 15appliedFailure to Provide Truthful and Candid Answers
AG ¶ 14(a)appliedSexual Behavior That Raises a Security Concern

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 issuedOct 19, 2023
Answer filedJul 5, 2024Amended SOR issued.
Hearing heldMar 14, 2025
Decision dateJun 30, 2025Decision reversed on appeal.

Cite For

Credibility Issues in Security Clearance Cases
Impact of Admissions During Polygraph Examinations on Security Eligibility
Reversal of Favorable Decisions Based on Failure to Provide Truthful Information

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 sexual behavior, criminal conduct, and personal conduct. The Government appealed the Administrative Judge's decision to grant the Applicant a security clearance, arguing that the Judge made harmful factual errors and misapplied mitigating conditions. The Board reversed the decision, finding that the Judge's credibility assessment was flawed and not supported by the record.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline DGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge ignored significant conflicting evidence regarding the Applicant's credibility.
Credibility determination — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge's credibility assessment of the Applicant was not adequately supported by the record.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge's application of mitigating conditions was arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge failed to adequately address significant conflicting evidence regarding the Applicant's credibility and made arbitrary and capricious determinations regarding the application of mitigating conditions. The Board concluded that the Judge's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and reversed the decision.

Ignored material evidenceCredibility-deference errorNo rational connection between facts and conclusion

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must reevaluate the evidence and provide a more thorough analysis of the Applicant's credibility and the application of mitigating conditions.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Chair Member 1 — Chair
Member 2
Member 3

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.