ISCR Case No. 25-00933

DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD Date: August 26, 2026 _______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

)

----------- )

ISCR Case No. 25-00933

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) APPEAL BOARD DECISION

FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel

Samir Nakhleh, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On November 25, 2025, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), and Guideline J (Criminal 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 July 2, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Jeff A. Nagel denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Background Applicant is in his early 30s and has worked for a defense contractor since 2022. Although he previously held national security eligibility while serving in the military from 2016 to 2018, he now seeks eligibility in connection with defense contractor employment.

Under Guideline J and Guideline E, the SOR cross-alleged that Applicant was arrested or cited eleven times between 2009 and 2022 for various alcohol, drug, and property offenses, that he remained on probation for his most recent driving under the influence (DUI) charge, and that he was discharged from the military in 2018 under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The alcohol- related offenses, which included three DUIs in 2017, 2018, and 2022, were further cross-alleged under Guideline G, as were Applicant’s violations of his 2018 DUI’s probation, including when he was charged again with DUI in 2022 and when he failed to complete an 18-month alcohol program and was terminated from it as noncompliant. Under Guideline H, the SOR alleged Applicant’s involvement with marijuana, including use from 2013 to 2022 and citation for possession in 2015, and his involvement with cocaine, including use from 2017 to 2019 while holding a security clearance and a positive drug test in 2018. Finally, the SOR alleged under Guideline E that Applicant falsified his 2015 security clearance application (SCA) when he deliberately failed to disclose certain reportable criminal charges and misrepresented the nature of his marijuana use, and that he falsified his 2022 SCA when he deliberately failed to disclose certain other reportable criminal charges, his marijuana and cocaine use, and his alcohol program noncompliance. In response to the SOR, Applicant acknowledged and admitted all allegations with explanation, and he requested that his case be decided based on the written record. He received a complete copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on May 8, 2026, and was notified of his ability to respond with any objections or additional information for the Judge to consider. Applicant did not respond to the FORM. The Judge found favorably on all Guideline H concerns, two Guideline J concerns that were redundant of other allegations, and the Guideline G concern regarding alcohol program noncompliance because Applicant subsequently completed the program in June 2025. The remaining Guidelines G and J concerns and all Guideline E concerns were resolved adversely. Discussion On appeal, Applicant’s Counsel contends that the Judge failed to properly apply the mitigating conditions and Whole-Person Concept. For the following reasons, we affirm. Forum Selection Counsel makes an assertion early in his brief regarding a procedural matter that, although not pursued as an error for appeal, should be addressed at the outset. To that end, he states that: Applicant requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge because he believed that his testimony and demeanor would assist the Judge in evaluating the substantial changes he had made in his life. However, the matter ultimately proceeded on the written record, resulting in the Decision now on appeal. Appeal Brief at 2. Our review of the record reflects that Counsel included a boilerplate section – “Right to a Hearing” – in the SOR response, wherein he asserted that Applicant, “by and through his attorneys . . . herein reserves the right to a hearing . . . in this matter should a written response fail to mitigate the Government’s concerns.” Answer at 7. The Government sought to clarify 2

whether Applicant wished to pursue a hearing or a decision based on the written record, to which Counsel responded that Applicant “elects to have the matter adjudicated based solely on the written record.” Government Exhibit 3 at 1. Counsel’s assertion that Applicant requested a hearing is incorrect, and his implication that this matter was decided via a forum contrary to Applicant’s selection is without merit. Mitigation and Whole-Person Analyses In analyzing the cross-alleged concerns under Guidelines J, G, and E and the Whole-Person Concept, the Judge repeatedly commended Applicant’s latest efforts supporting rehabilitation, opining that “Applicant’s submitted evidence paints a promising picture for his future” and that he “has made great strides since his last DUI.” Decision at 10, 14. He favorably noted Applicant’s unchallenged assertions of sobriety since May 2022 and having maintained steady employment since that time, that Applicant’s license suspension recently ended, and that he completed his 18­ month alcohol program in June 2025. Citing Applicant’s decade of criminal misconduct and alcohol-related incidents that increased in severity each time, and his active probation for his most recent DUI, which combined to carry Applicant’s history of criminal conduct, personal conduct, and alcohol consumption security concerns into the present, the Judge concluded that more time and Applicant’s successful completion of probation was necessary to fully mitigate the concerns. On appeal, Counsel challenges the Judge’s weighing of the foregoing evidence, in particular charging error in his “assigning controlling weight to Applicant’s ongoing probationary status” and “failing to properly evaluate the overwhelming evidence of rehabilitation.” Appeal Brief at 1. Focusing on Applicant’s current probation, Counsel contends that that the Judge erred in failing to apply mitigating condition AG ¶ 32(d),1 arguing that it requires only probation compliance, and “does not require completion of probation before rehabilitation may be found.” Appeal Brief at 5 (emphasis added). While Applicant’s current probation compliance was evidence that the Judge needed to – and properly did – consider, it did not compel him to find those efforts fully mitigating. Rather, the Judge was required to exercise sound discretion in weighing that evidence against the entire record, which here reflects a lengthy history of criminal offenses, including prior periods of probation completed with varying degrees of compliance. Moreover, while on probation for his 2018 DUI, Applicant was charged with DUI again in 2022, and he remained on probation as of the close of the record, which alone raises a potentially disqualifying security concern.2 The Judge’s finding that Applicant needed more time without further incident to sufficiently demonstrate successful rehabilitation was reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Counsel’s ability to advocate for an alternative weighing of the evidence is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, 1 AG ¶ 32(d): there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement. 2 AG ¶ 31(c): individual is currently on parole or probation. 3

capricious, or contrary to law. See ISCR Case No. 04-08975, 2006 WL 2725032 at *1 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2006) (citation omitted). Regarding the Guideline E falsification concerns, the Judge thoroughly addressed the circumstances surrounding Applicant’s inaccurate responses provided in his 2015 and 2022 SCAs, including the complexity of the questions asked, Applicant’s “numerous encounters with law enforcement,” and his inaccurate responses on not one, but two applications submitted years apart, and he found that Applicant’s “blanket assertion that all five [inaccurate SCA responses] were due to his ‘misunderstanding’ or ‘simple mistakes’” was not credible. Decision at 11. On appeal, Counsel argues that the Judge gave “insufficient consideration to Applicant’s explanations.” Appeal Brief at 6. His challenge to the adverse falsification findings appears to be that, because Applicant fully admitted each SOR allegation, “accepted responsibility for the reporting errors, and committed to complete candor going forward,” he has sufficiently demonstrated rehabilitation and current trustworthiness. Id. at 7. We are not persuaded. First and contrary to Counsel’s characterization on appeal, Applicant’s persistent denial of deliberate falsifications avoids full responsibility and undercuts his evidence of rehabilitation under both the Adjudicative Guidelines and the Whole-Person Concept. See ISCR Case No. 96­ 0360, 1997 WL 1882602 at *3 (App. Bd. Sep. 25, 1997) (“Where an applicant is unwilling or unable to accept responsibility for his or her own actions, such a failure is evidence that detracts from a finding of reform and rehabilitation.”). The Directive is clear that an applicant’s failure to respond truthfully and candidly during a national security investigation is of special concern, specifically stating that the “refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials, or other official representatives” in connection with an investigation and adjudication will normally result in an unfavorable eligibility determination. AG ¶ 15. In cases involving the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of material information, an applicant has a “heavy burden in demonstrating evidence of reform, rehabilitation, or changed circumstances sufficient to justify a conclusion that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information.” ISCR Case No. 01-03132, 2002 WL 32114509 at *4 (App. Bd. Aug. 8, 2002). The Judge’s explanation for his adverse resolution of the Guideline E falsification concerns is well supported by the record and Appeal Board precedent to which he cites. 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). 4

Order The decision in ISCR Case No. 25-00933 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Eric H. Borgstrom Eric H. Borgstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 5