CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00347 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 20-00347

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/30/2024
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 20-00347.a1) →See the hearing decision (Case 20-00347) →
Participants
Judge: Robert Robinson Gales
Government Counsel: Dan O'Reilley
Applicant's Counsel: Alan V. Edmunds
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 31-year-old employee of a defense contractor, seeking a security clearance after previously holding one that had been suspended due to various legal issues. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) cited concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), detailing multiple incidents of alleged domestic violence and child abuse stemming from a contentious relationship with the mother of one of his children.
The applicant admitted to most of the allegations in the SOR, which included several incidents of criminal conduct related to domestic disputes and a conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. He provided extensive comments on these incidents, which primarily revolved around custody disputes and interactions with law enforcement. Despite the serious nature of the allegations, many charges were dismissed or placed in a Stet status, indicating they were not pursued further. The applicant also attended anger management as part of a court requirement.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting him eligibility for a security clearance. The judge concluded that the applicant had sufficiently mitigated the security concerns by demonstrating a commitment to addressing his past behavior and by the lack of recent incidents. The judge noted the applicant's efforts to comply with court orders and his ongoing employment in a sensitive position as factors supporting the decision.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · For 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. 20-00347

grantedMar 30, 2024· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old defense contractor and Navy Reserve member was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The issues stemmed from multiple arrests and charges, primarily related to a contentious custody dispute. Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 31(a) and AG ¶ 31(b) were raised regarding his personal and criminal conduct.

However, the administrative judge applied several mitigating conditions, including AG ¶ 32(a), AG ¶ 32(c), AG ¶ 32(d), AG ¶ 17(c), AG ¶ 17(d), and AG ¶ 17(e). The judge determined that the applicant had made significant efforts to mitigate his past conduct, demonstrating positive changes and compliance with court orders.

Crucially, all criminal charges against the applicant, with the exception of one DWI incident, were dismissed. This, combined with strong character references and his military service, reflected a reliable individual with good moral character. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's past conduct no longer raised doubts about his trustworthiness, and the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated significant efforts to mitigate past criminal conduct through positive changes and compliance with court orders.
All criminal charges against the applicant, except for one DWI incident, were dismissed, indicating a lack of substantiated claims against him.
The applicant's character references and military service reflected a strong moral character and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(a)raisedPattern of Minor Offenses

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 32(c)appliedNo Reliable Evidence to Support the Individual Committed the Offense
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation
AG ¶ 17(c)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment of Behavior and Positive Steps Taken
AG ¶ 17(e)appliedPositive Steps to Reduce Vulnerability to Exploitation

Key Rule Quoted

“A person should not be held forever accountable for misconduct from the past.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 12, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 15, 2021Hearing was postponed and continued.
Decision dateMar 30, 2024

Cite For

Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J Due to Dismissed Charges
Successful Rehabilitation Efforts in Personal Conduct Cases
Impact of Character References on Security Clearance Decisions

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.