CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-02085 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-02085

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/2/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-02085) →
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 was a federal contractor in his mid-60s, married with three adult children, who sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) raised concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), alleging that the applicant had received corrective action memos for inappropriate behavior in 2016 and 2022, which led to his termination in 2022. Additionally, the SOR included allegations of intentional falsification regarding his employment history on his security clearance application.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to some allegations but denied others, particularly those related to his behavior and the circumstances of his terminations. He argued that his employment was "at will" and that his terminations did not indicate misconduct. The administrative judge found that while the applicant mitigated some concerns, he did not sufficiently address the allegations related to his inappropriate behavior and falsification of information. The judge concluded that the evidence supported the concerns raised in the SOR, affirming that granting the clearance was not consistent with national security interests.
The appeal board upheld the administrative judge's decision, stating that the judge had properly considered the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the ruling. The board noted that the applicant's disagreement with the judge's findings did not demonstrate any harmful error, and the decision was affirmed based on the record.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal 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. 24-02085

Sep 2, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to the applicant's history of inappropriate behavior and job terminations. The applicant, representing himself, received corrective action memos for misconduct and was subsequently terminated from two separate positions for similar reasons.

Further concerns arose from the applicant's failure to disclose critical employment history during the security clearance process. This omission, coupled with instances of falsification, led to the denial.

The appeal affirmed the initial denial, emphasizing the applicant's pattern of misconduct and lack of candor regarding their employment background. The decision highlighted disqualifying conditions E2.A5.1.2 and E2.A5.2.1, ultimately upholding the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2raisedFalsification of Material Facts
E2.A5.2.1notedInvolvement in Criminal Activity

Procedural Posture

Decision DateSep 2, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Personal Conduct Issues
Failure to Mitigate Allegations of Falsification
Impact of Job Terminations on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 a denial of security clearance based on allegations of personal conduct. The applicant challenged the Judge's findings regarding inappropriate behavior and falsification. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge made factual errors in describing the events alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge did not properly weigh the evidence regarding SOR ¶ 1.e.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge properly considered the evidence and applied the mitigating conditions appropriately. The findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

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
Allison Marie
Jennifer Goldstein

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.