CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02038 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02038

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/17/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02038) →
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 from the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied due to concerns under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined issues stemming from a government-requested psychological evaluation, which included the applicant's mental health history, diagnoses, and a guarded prognosis from the evaluating psychologist.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations presented in the SOR and participated in a hearing where he provided evidence and called witnesses. He also submitted additional documentation post-hearing at his request. Despite these efforts, the administrative judge found against the applicant on the sole allegation related to his psychological condition.
The Appeal Board upheld the administrative judge's decision, noting that the applicant did not assert any errors in the judge's findings. Instead, the applicant requested reconsideration based on his military service, contributions as a defense contractor, academic achievements, and efforts to address his mental health. However, the Board clarified that it does not review cases de novo and can only consider claims of harmful error, which the applicant did not present. Consequently, the decision to deny the applicant national security eligibility was affirmed.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline IPsychological Conditions · For Applicant
- Guideline IPsychological Conditions · 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. 23-02038

Dec 17, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) following a psychological evaluation that revealed mental health issues. The applicant admitted to the allegations stemming from this evaluation.

The appeal board upheld the denial, finding no errors in the judge's ruling. Although the applicant highlighted his military service and contributions, he did not assert any specific errors in the judge's decision.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied based on the established psychological conditions and the lack of asserted errors in the initial ruling.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedPsychological Conditions

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 issuedOct 16, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant elected a hearing and submitted evidence.
Decision dateDec 17, 2025Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoss D. Hyams — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline I

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant did not raise any claims of harmful error, and therefore, the Judge's adverse decision was sustained.

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.