CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00129 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00129

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/4/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Eric C. Price
Government Counsel: Erin P. Thompson
Case Summary
Applicant was a 32-year-old analyst employed by a defense contractor, having previously served in the U.S. Army as a signals intelligence analyst. He applied for a security clearance in May 2020, but the Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) in February 2023, citing concerns under Guidelines I (Psychological Conditions), B (Foreign Influence), and E (Personal Conduct). The core allegations included a history of mental health issues, specifically Major Depressive Disorder, and concerns regarding his personal conduct, including past allegations of abusive behavior.
During the proceedings, Applicant admitted to the allegations regarding his mental health treatment and the impact of his marital issues on his behavior. He provided explanations for his past conduct, attributing it to stress and medication side effects. He also acknowledged limited contact with his in-laws in Israel, emphasizing his commitment to maintaining his security clearance. Despite his admissions and evidence of improvement in his mental health, the administrative judge found that he had not sufficiently mitigated the concerns under Guideline E, particularly regarding his past behavior and the implications of his foreign connections.
The administrative judge ruled against the Applicant, denying his eligibility for access to classified information. The judge concluded that while the Applicant had made progress in managing his psychological conditions and had mitigated some concerns, the unresolved issues related to his personal conduct and the potential for foreign influence were significant enough to warrant denial of his security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · For Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against 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. 23-00129

deniedAug 4, 2025· Hon. Eric C. Price· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old defense contractor and former U.S. Army analyst was denied a security clearance after a DOHA review. The applicant faced concerns under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions), Guideline B (Foreign Influence), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).

The judge determined that the applicant successfully mitigated concerns related to foreign influence and psychological conditions, specifically applying mitigating conditions AG ¶ 29(a) and AG ¶ 8(a). However, the applicant failed to mitigate issues under Guideline E, Personal Conduct.

The denial was primarily due to the applicant's deliberate falsification of material facts concerning military discipline. Additionally, ongoing psychological issues contributed to significant trustworthiness concerns, ultimately leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant mitigated concerns under Guideline I by demonstrating compliance with treatment and improvement in mental health.
The applicant mitigated concerns under Guideline B by minimizing contact with foreign relatives and demonstrating loyalty to U.S. interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant deliberately omitted and falsified relevant facts in his security clearance application.
AG ¶ 28(b)appliedPsychological ConditionsA qualified mental health professional opined that the applicant's condition may impair judgment and reliability.
AG ¶ 7(a)appliedForeign InfluenceThe applicant's foreign connections create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 29(a)appliedPsychological ConditionsThe applicant's mental health condition is controllable with treatment.
AG ¶ 8(a)appliedForeign InfluenceThe nature of the applicant's relationships with foreign persons is unlikely to create a conflict of interest.

Key Rule Quoted

“"No one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 6, 2023
Answer filed—Undated answer submitted.
Hearing heldMay 1, 2024Conducted by video teleconference.
Decision dateAug 4, 2025

Cite For

Falsification of Material Facts Under Guideline E
Mitigation of Psychological Conditions Under Guideline I
Foreign Influence Concerns Related to Family Ties Under Guideline B

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.