CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02271 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-02271

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/10/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Edward W. Loughran
Government Counsel: Patricia M. Lynch-Epps
Applicant's Counsel: Daniel P. Meyer
Case Summary
Applicant was a 44-year-old employee of a defense contractor, with a military background and multiple degrees. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline F (financial considerations). The allegations included a history of problematic behavior, such as being asked to resign from a student government position due to a terroristic threat allegation, multiple terminations from educational institutions, and workplace harassment claims.
During the hearing, the applicant admitted to some allegations, such as being asked to resign and failing a course due to plagiarism, but denied others, asserting that he was a victim of harassment and retaliation. He provided explanations for his terminations, claiming they were unjust and based on false allegations. However, the evidence presented included corroborating witness accounts of inappropriate conduct and harassment, which the applicant disputed.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the security concerns. The judge found the applicant's explanations and denials unconvincing, particularly in light of the corroborating evidence of his behavior, which raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 21-02271

deniedAug 10, 2023· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old defense contractor and military veteran was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons detailed multiple instances of personal misconduct and financial instability.

Regarding personal conduct, the applicant was asked to resign from a student government position following an allegation of making a terroristic threat. He also experienced unfavorable departures from several employers, including leaving one in 2004 due to verbal harassment, being terminated from a university in 2005 for failing to keep regular office hours, and being fired from a technical institute for cause. Further, he was terminated from a technical university for unfavorable conduct and from a college in 2015. Additionally, the applicant failed a course due to plagiarism.

Financially, the applicant filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in March 2008 and has a history of financial problems, including a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The judge found the applicant's credibility lacking and determined that he did not mitigate the security concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's credibility was questioned, leading to doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant had a history of personal misconduct, including allegations of harassment and inappropriate behavior in the workplace.
The applicant's financial history included multiple bankruptcies and unresolved debts, indicating poor judgment and lack of self-control.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse Information
AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability
AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 12, 2022
Answer filedApr 24, 2022
Hearing heldJun 1, 2023
Decision dateAug 10, 2023

Cite For

Credibility Assessment in Security Clearance Cases
Impact of Financial Instability on Security Clearance Eligibility
Evaluation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline 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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found multiple personal conduct concerns against the applicant, including allegations of plagiarism, termination for cause, and unfavorable conduct in previous employment. The applicant's responses were not sufficient to mitigate these concerns, leading to a denied outcome.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was asked to resign from a student government position after someone alleged that he made a terroristic threat, presumably similar to a school shooting.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant left his employment in 2004 under unfavorable circumstances, including verbal harassment.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied with Explanation	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant was terminated from his employment at the university in 2005 for failing to keep regular office hours as directed.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant failed a course due to plagiarism.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment GeneralNOT DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.e	Applicant was fired from his employment at a technical institute for cause.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.f	Applicant was terminated from his employment at a technical university for unfavorable conduct.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant was terminated from his employment at a college in 2015.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied with Explanation	—	—	—
1.h	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant's financial issues, including a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2008 and a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2019, raised significant concerns under Guideline F. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant on the allegations related to financial considerations, indicating a lack of responsibility and truthfulness regarding his financial situation.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case in March 2008.	For Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Unknown	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant has a history of financial problems, including a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case.	Against Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Unknown	—	—	—

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

Full decision

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