A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-02038
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 17, 2025 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) but was denied based on a psychological evaluation that revealed mental health issues. The appeal board upheld the denial, noting the applicant did not assert any errors in the judge's ruling, despite highlighting his military service and contributions.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to the allegations stemming from a psychological evaluation.
- The appeal board found no errors in the judge's ruling.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Psychological Conditionsraised
Key rule quoted
“There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing party has the burden of demonstrating that the judge committed factual or legal error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2023-10-16
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- Applicant elected a hearing and submitted evidence.
- Decision date
- 2025-12-17 Appeal decision affirmed.
Cite for
- Upholding of Denial Based on Psychological Conditions Under Guideline I
- Burden of Proof on the Appealing Party to Demonstrate Error
- No Presumption of Error in Lower Court Decisions
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
The appeal was in response to a denial of security clearance based on psychological conditions. The Applicant did not assert any errors in the Judge's decision but requested reconsideration based on personal achievements and efforts to address mental health. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as no harmful error was alleged.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
---------------- )
ISCR Case No. 23-02038
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: December 17, 2025
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On October 16, 2023, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – a security concern raised under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On September 19, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Ross D. Hyams denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The sole allegation under Guideline I summarized the results of a government-requested psychological evaluation, to include Applicant’s mental health history, his diagnoses, and the psychologist’s guarded prognosis. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegation and elected a hearing at which he submitted evidence and called witnesses. At Applicant’s request, the Judge held the record open for a post-hearing submission, which was admitted without objection. The Judge found adversely on the single allegation.
There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing party has the burden of demonstrating that the judge committed factual or legal error. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of error on the part of the Judge. Instead, he requests that the Board reconsider the revocation decision, citing to his military service, his contributions as a defense contractor, his academic achievements, and his commitment to seeking help for his mental health. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and our authority to review a case is limited to matters in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error. Applicant has not alleged any such error, and the Judge’s adverse decision is therefore sustained.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-02038 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board