Loading case…

ISCR 24-00362: Guideline D security clearance appeal, denied (2025) · CASE

ISCR Case 24-00362denied

Case headnote

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 Administrative 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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

--------- )

ISCR Case No. 24-00362

)

) 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: September 30, 2025

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 11, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) 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 11, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Gatha LaFaye denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.

DISCUSSION

Applicant, in his mid-30s, has been employed as a federal contractor since 2018 and has worked with his current employer and security clearance sponsor since late 2020. Under Guideline J, the SOR alleged that Applicant was involved in seven domestic violence-related incidents between 2010 and September 2021, including harassment and sending harassing communications. The SOR further alleged under Guideline D that Applicant’s January 2016 arrest involved his

electronically sending an explicit picture of himself to another person and that, in November 2020, he was the subject of a complaint to police that he electronically communicated with and sent explicit pictures to his sister-in-law on her “Only Fans” account without first identifying himself. Finally, all of the foregoing conduct was cross-alleged under Guideline E. In response to the SOR, Applicant denied the allegation regarding his sister-in-law, admitted all other allegations with explanation, and requested that his case be decided based on the written record. On February 21, 2025, he received a complete copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material and was notified of his ability to respond with objections or additional information for the Judge to consider. Applicant responded on April 6, 2025, and submitted a letter from a licensed professional counselor who stated that she had worked with Applicant therapeutically off and on since 2012. The Judge favorably resolved the concerns under Guidelines D and E, as well as the 2010 arrest alleged under Guideline J. She held adversely on the remaining six Guideline J concerns, however, finding that “Applicant’s impulsive and irresponsible behavior[,] evidenced by his multiple domestic violence and harassment incidents against his last three domestic partners between 2013 and his last court administrative action in 2024, shows the continuation of a pattern of abusive behavior that has not been adequately addressed or resolved.” Decision at 8. There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity. Directive ¶ E3.1.30. Citing the Judge’s analysis under the Whole- Person Concept that Applicant’s election to have his case decided on the written record left no opportunity to question him about inconsistencies in his various statements about the arrests, observe his demeanor, or otherwise assess his credibility, Applicant on appeal expresses regret for his election and requests that his case be remanded for a hearing to address the Judge’s concerns. Absent a showing of harmful error that affects a party’s right to present evidence in the proceedings below, a party is not entitled to a second chance to present their case. See ISCR Case No. 00-0086 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 13, 2000). Here, Applicant asserts that he declined an in-person hearing because he previously believed that would require him to retain an attorney, which he could not afford. When he received his SOR, however, the transmittal letter described the hearing process and advised him: “You may be represented by counsel or a personal representative, or you may choose to represent yourself.” 10/11/2024 Transmittal Letter at 2 (emphasis added). Applicant has failed to identify or demonstrate any error by the Judge, let alone any error that affected his right to have legal representation or to present evidence on his behalf during the proceedings below. Accordingly, there is no factual or legal basis for the Board to grant Applicant the relief he seeks.

CONCLUSION

Applicant has not established that the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Our review of the record confirms that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on this record. “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). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b).

ORDER

The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-00362 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