CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00362 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00362

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/30/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00362) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant, a federal contractor in his mid-30s, sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied due to concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined allegations of seven domestic violence-related incidents from 2010 to September 2021, including harassment and sending harassing communications. Additionally, the applicant faced allegations related to sending explicit images to his sister-in-law and other individuals.
In response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to most allegations, providing explanations for his behavior, but denied the claim regarding his sister-in-law. He submitted a letter from a licensed professional counselor attesting to his therapeutic work since 2012. The administrative judge found that while the applicant had addressed some concerns under Guidelines D and E, he had not sufficiently mitigated the issues under Guideline J, particularly regarding a pattern of abusive behavior. The judge noted that the applicant's decision to have his case decided on the written record limited the ability to assess his credibility and address inconsistencies in his statements.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, stating that the applicant had not demonstrated any error that would warrant a remand for a hearing. The Board concluded that the judge's decision was well-reasoned and consistent with national security interests, emphasizing that any doubts regarding personnel eligibility should be resolved in favor of national security.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · For Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · 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. 24-00362

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

Summary

A federal contractor in his mid-30s was denied a security clearance under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a pattern of domestic violence incidents and inappropriate communications. Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 30, AG ¶ 24, and AG ¶ 15 were raised, while mitigating conditions AG ¶ 23 and AG ¶ 20 were applied.

Despite the applicant partially admitting to some allegations, the judges determined that his history of multiple domestic violence incidents demonstrated an unaddressed pattern of abusive behavior. This pattern was a primary factor in the denial.

Furthermore, the applicant's decision to proceed without an in-person hearing limited the judge's ability to assess his credibility and demeanor, contributing to the final decision. The denial was affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 24raisedSexual Behavior
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23appliedSexual Behavior
AG ¶ 20appliedPersonal Conduct

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 Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 11, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant elected to proceed on the written record.
Decision dateSep 30, 2025Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Pattern of Abusive Behavior Under Guideline J
Limitations of Proceeding Without an In-person Hearing
Burden of Proof on the Appealing Party to Demonstrate Harmful 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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on multiple allegations under Guidelines J, D, and E. The applicant appealed, expressing regret for choosing a written record decision and requesting a remand for a hearing. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error that affected the applicant's rights.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGatha LaFaye — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline DGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant expressed regret for electing to have his case decided on the written record and requested a remand for a hearing.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and confirmed that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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.