CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-00180.a1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 11-00180.a1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/19/2012
Statusunknown
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 11-00180.a2) →See the hearing decision (Case 11-00180.h2) →See the hearing decision (Case 11-00180.h1) →
Participants
Judge: Jeffrey D. Billett, Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody
Government Counsel: David F. Hayes
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a senior program manager for a government contractor who had previously served in the military and held security clearances during his service. The Department of Defense's Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The core allegations involved the applicant's liability in a civil lawsuit, where he was found liable for multiple counts, including breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets.
Key facts established during the proceedings included the applicant's transition from Company A to Company B, where he allegedly took a personal hard drive containing information relevant to Company A's business. The applicant admitted to being found liable in the civil trial but denied any wrongdoing, claiming he had left Company A on good terms. The administrative judge found substantial evidence of security concerns based on the civil trial's outcome but noted that the applicant was not allowed to present a full case in mitigation due to a lack of clarity regarding the specifics of his conduct.
The administrative judge ultimately ruled against the applicant regarding two allegations under Guideline E, concluding that the evidence indicated a failure to follow rules and regulations. The judge found that the applicant's testimony and denial of wrongdoing were inconsistent with the findings of the civil trial, which raised questions about his judgment and reliability. The case was remanded for further consideration, particularly regarding the applicant's ability to present additional evidence in mitigation.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 11-00180.a1

unknownJun 19, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· hearing

Summary

This DOHA security clearance case involved a senior program manager for a government contractor, with concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant was found liable in a civil trial for breaches of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets, leading to a security concern under Guideline E, specifically Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 16(c) and AG ¶ 16(d).

While the appeal board found substantial evidence supporting the Guideline E concerns, it ruled in favor of the applicant regarding Guideline F, indicating no unresolved financial considerations. However, the applicant was precluded from fully presenting his case in mitigation for the personal conduct issues due to insufficient evidence regarding the precise nature of his conduct.

Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings. This will allow the applicant an opportunity to present additional evidence concerning his conduct and the context of the allegations, aiming to clarify the circumstances surrounding the civil trial findings. No final security clearance outcome has been determined at this stage.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Substantial evidence of a Guideline E security concern was found based on the applicant's civil trial liability for breaches of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets.
The applicant was precluded from presenting his case in mitigation due to insufficient evidence regarding the precise nature of his conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information That Raises Questions About an Individual's Reliability, Trustworthiness, and Ability to Protect Classified Information.
AG ¶ 16(d)raisedA Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations.

Key Rule Quoted

“The gravity of the conduct, Applicant’s attitude toward it, and the cause of the conduct cannot be properly assessed until more is known about the underlying facts and circumstances of the case.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 29, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 8, 2012
Decision dateJun 19, 2012Appeal board remanded for further proceedings.

Cite For

Substantial Evidence of Security Concerns Under Guideline E Based on Civil Trial Findings
The Necessity for a Full and Fair Opportunity to Present Evidence in Mitigation
The Application of Collateral Estoppel Doctrine in DOHA Hearings

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.