CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02551 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 21-02551

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/7/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert Robinson Gales
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 51-year-old employee of a defense contractor who applied for a security clearance in March 2019. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) in May 2022, citing concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline D (Sexual Behavior). The SOR detailed the applicant's criminal history, including a conviction for battery against a household member and multiple charges related to sexual offenses involving minors.
The applicant admitted to most of the allegations related to criminal conduct but did not specifically address the sexual behavior allegations. He claimed that he accepted a plea bargain to avoid a potentially wrongful conviction and argued that a conditional discharge does not constitute a felony conviction. Character references from coworkers and family members described him as a valuable employee and a caring father, but the applicant did not provide a response to the Government's file of relevant material after being given the opportunity.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding his criminal conduct and sexual behavior. The judge emphasized that the applicant's criminal history raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability, which are critical factors in determining eligibility for a security clearance. As a result, the applicant's request for a security clearance was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal 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. 21-02551

deniedMar 7, 2023· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to serious criminal offenses. The Statement of Reasons detailed allegations including an arrest for battery against a household member, and two separate arrests and charges for various criminal sexual offenses involving two minors.

On December 12, 2019, the applicant entered a plea of no contest to lesser fourth-degree felonies for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, as part of a plea agreement. Disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines paragraphs 13(a), 13(b), and 31(b) were raised.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to mitigate security concerns related to criminal conduct and sexual behavior. The judge found substantial evidence of criminal conduct, including multiple charges involving minors, and noted the applicant did not take responsibility for his actions, which raised doubts about his judgment and reliability. Despite some positive character references, the judge found a lack of rehabilitation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to mitigate security concerns regarding criminal conduct and sexual behavior.
Substantial evidence of criminal conduct was established, including multiple charges involving minors.
The applicant did not take responsibility for his actions, raising doubts about his judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 13(a)appliedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature
AG ¶ 13(b)appliedPattern of Compulsive or High-risk Sexual Behavior

Key Rule Quoted

“"No one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 11, 2022
Answer filedMay 24, 2022Elected to have case decided on written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateMar 7, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Serious Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Failure to Mitigate Concerns Regarding Sexual Behavior Under Guideline D
Importance of Taking Responsibility for Past Misconduct in Security Clearance Evaluations.

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant engaged in sexual behavior of a criminal nature involving minors, which raised significant security concerns. The applicant's claims of mitigating circumstances were not sufficient to overcome the established concerns, leading to a denial of eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant engaged in sexual behavior of a criminal nature involving minors.	Against Applicant	Criminal Sexual Conduct	Unknown	(b) a pattern of compulsive, self-destructive, or high-risk sexual behavior that the individual is unable to stop	—	—

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 J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on allegations of criminal conduct, including battery against a household member and multiple charges of sexual offenses involving minors. The applicant admitted to some allegations but failed to mitigate the security concerns, resulting in a denial of eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested and charged with battery against a household member.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	Applicant was arrested and charged in two separate cases with a variety of criminal sexual offences with two minors.	Against Applicant	Sexual Offense Criminal	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.d	On December 12, 2019, as part of a plea agreement, Applicant entered a plea of no contest to the offenses of contributing to the delinquency of a minor to lesser fourth degree felonies associated with only the first three of the grand jury charges.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Diversion or Deferred	Admitted	—	—	—

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

Full decision

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