CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00993 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-00993

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/1/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Marc E. Curry
Government Counsel: Patricia M. Lynch-Epps
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 57-year-old logistics management specialist who had previously served in the U.S. Army and held a master's degree in conflict management. The Department of Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons citing security concerns under Guideline D (sexual behavior) and Guideline E (personal conduct) due to the applicant's history of sexual harassment towards female colleagues between 2016 and 2018, which ultimately led to his termination from employment.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to one specific instance of inappropriate behavior but denied other allegations of sexual harassment. He characterized his conduct as harmless flirting and claimed that the allegations were part of a conspiracy against him. The administrative judge found that the applicant's behavior created a hostile work environment, supported by multiple sworn statements from colleagues. The judge noted that the applicant's denials were unconvincing and that he had failed to take responsibility for his actions, which contributed to the decision to deny his security clearance.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the evidence demonstrated a pattern of inappropriate conduct that raised significant security concerns. The judge emphasized the importance of trust and confidence in individuals granted access to classified information, stating that the applicant's lack of accountability and the severity of his actions warranted a denial of his security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · Against Applicant
- 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. 21-00993

deniedFeb 1, 2023· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 57-year-old married U.S. Army veteran was denied a security clearance under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to allegations of sexual harassment and hostile behavior. Between 2016 and 2018, the applicant was accused of sexually harassing several female colleagues, which ultimately led to his termination from employment.

Further concerns arose from the applicant's hostile behavior towards his accusers after he became aware of the allegations, also contributing to his termination. The administrative judge determined that the applicant's actions created a hostile work environment, raising disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines paragraphs 13(c), 13(d), and 16(d)(2).

The denial was based on the established fact that the applicant's sexual harassment of multiple female colleagues created a hostile work environment. Additionally, the applicant's credibility was found lacking through multiple investigations and testimonies. The judge concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate rehabilitation or contrition for his actions, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's sexual harassment of multiple female colleagues created a hostile work environment.
The applicant's lack of credibility was established through multiple investigations and testimonies.
The applicant failed to demonstrate rehabilitation or contrition for his actions.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 13(c)raisedSexual Behavior That Causes an Individual to Be Vulnerable to Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress
AG ¶ 13(d)raisedSexual Behavior That Reflects a Lack of Discretion or Judgment
AG ¶ 16(d)(2)raisedAny Disruptive, Violent, or Other Inappropriate Behavior

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 10, 2021
Answer filedJan 14, 2022
Hearing heldOct 19, 2022via video teleconference
Decision dateFeb 1, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Sexual Harassment Allegations
Lack of Credibility Impacting Security Clearance Decisions
Hostile Work Environment as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline D and E

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline D (Sexual Behavior) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The applicant was found to have engaged in sexual harassment of multiple female colleagues between 2016 and 2018, which led to his termination from employment. The judge ruled against the applicant, citing unmitigated security concerns related to his sexual behavior and personal conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant’s sexual harassment of several female colleagues between 2016 to 2018 led to his termination from employment and generated sexual behavior and personal conduct security concerns that remain unmitigated.	Against Applicant	Workplace Sexual Misconduct	Admitted	(c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline D). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant's hostile behavior towards his accusers after learning of the allegations contributed to his termination. The applicant's conduct, including sexual harassment of multiple colleagues, was deemed unmitigated and inconsistent with national security interests, leading to a denial of eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant’s hostile behavior towards his accusers after he learned of the allegations led to his termination.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

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