CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02116 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-02116

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/14/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Edward W. Loughran
Government Counsel: Jeff Kent
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 56-year-old CEO of a defense contractor who faced security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline M (use of information technology). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined allegations related to an online affair with a woman, Ms. A, which included claims of inappropriate photography and the use of company resources for personal matters. The applicant responded to the SOR, requesting a decision based on the written record.
Key facts included the applicant's admission of an online affair with Ms. A, which involved "sexting," but he denied any physical contact. He also admitted to taking photographs of her, asserting they were not of an erotic nature. The applicant claimed that the inappropriate content found on his work phone was accessed through personal devices that were synced to it, and he suggested that his son may have been responsible for some of the content. Despite these explanations, the applicant's lack of truthfulness during the investigation and the nature of his conduct led to concerns about his ability to maintain a security clearance.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the security concerns under Guideline E. The judge found that the applicant's behavior, including the creation of potentially compromising photographs and his dishonesty during the investigation, posed a significant risk to national security. The judge determined that the applicant's explanations did not sufficiently address the serious nature of the allegations against him.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline MUse of Information Technology · 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. 21-02116

deniedMar 14, 2023· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 56-year-old CEO of a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The Statement of Reasons detailed several allegations, including engaging in erotic photography and related activities in violation of company policy, and misusing a company-issued iPhone.

Further allegations included making false statements to his company during an investigation, submitting a false sworn affidavit, and intentionally falsifying his January 2021 SF-86 by answering "No" to a question about being fired or leaving due to misconduct. He also provided false information during his May 2021 background interview, stating he voluntarily resigned when he was, in fact, terminated.

The administrative judge found that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns related to personal conduct. The denial was based on the applicant's questionable judgment in participating in an online affair and erotic photography, and his false statements to his employer during the investigation. The judge concluded that granting a security clearance was not consistent with national interest.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not mitigate security concerns under Guideline E regarding personal conduct.
The applicant engaged in questionable judgment by participating in an online affair and erotic photography.
The applicant made false statements to his employer during the investigation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 15, 2021
Answer filedMar 13, 2022Requested decision based on written record.
Hearing heldJan 19, 2023
Decision dateMar 14, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Impact of False Statements on Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of Questionable Judgment in Personal Conduct Cases

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on allegations of personal conduct, including engaging in activities that violated company policy and falsifying information on security forms. The applicant's conduct was deemed inconsistent with the national interest, resulting in a denial of eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Engaging in the creation of erotic photography and related activities in violation of company policy; making false statements to company during the course of a company investigation concerning extent and nature of and other details concerning Activities; submission of a false sworn affidavit to company concerning the Activities; and misuse of company resources, including a company-issued iPhone, i	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment GeneralFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Intentionally falsified Section 13A of his January 2021 SF 86 when he answered 'No' to the question that asked if he had been fired; quit after being told he would be fired; left by mutual agreement following charges or allegations of misconduct; or left by mutual agreement following notice of unsatisfactory performance.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Intentionally provided false information during his May 2021 background interview when he stated that he voluntarily resigned from the Company, and therefore failed to disclose that he was terminated by the Company.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline M (Use of Information Technology) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge addressed concerns regarding the unauthorized use of information technology systems. Despite the allegations, the judge found in favor of the applicant regarding the unauthorized use of the system, indicating that the evidence did not sufficiently establish the claims against him.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation
2.a	Unauthorized use of any information technology system.	For Applicant	Unauthorized Use of System	Denied	—	—	—

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

Full decision

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