CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02727 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 21-02727

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/21/2023
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Braden M. Murphy
Government Counsel: William H. Miller
Applicant's Counsel: Matthew L. Hickman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 33-year-old research engineer who sought a security clearance in connection with his employment. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) addressed allegations under Guideline J (criminal conduct) and Guideline E (personal conduct) due to several misdemeanor offenses committed between the ages of 18 and 21, as well as a 2021 domestic violence charge. The most recent charge was dismissed after the applicant completed a pretrial diversion program, which included anger management counseling.
The applicant admitted to some of the past offenses, including a public nuisance charge and a criminal trespass charge, while denying the domestic violence allegations. He explained that the incident involved a dispute with a former girlfriend, asserting that he did not physically harm her and suggesting that her claims were fabricated. The applicant provided evidence of his completion of the diversion program and ongoing counseling as mitigation for his past conduct.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting him eligibility for access to classified information. The judge concluded that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation and a commitment to addressing his past behavior, particularly through his participation in the diversion program and continued counseling. The absence of any further criminal conduct since the completion of the program contributed to the favorable decision.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 21-02727

grantedNov 21, 2023· Hon. Braden M. Murphy· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old research engineer was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). These concerns stemmed from multiple past offenses, including two domestic violence charges (felony aggravated assault-strangulation and simple battery), a November 2008 charge for marijuana possession, a December 2011 guilty plea for criminal trespass, and a March 2009 guilty plea for public nuisance, which resulted in a $390 fine.

The applicant successfully mitigated these issues. He completed a pretrial diversion program that included anger management counseling, which he continued voluntarily. Significant time had passed since the offenses, demonstrating rehabilitation and increased maturity.

Additionally, the applicant's current professional standing and positive character references supported his eligibility. Based on these mitigating factors, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant completed a pretrial diversion program, including anger management counseling, which he continued voluntarily.
Significant time had elapsed since the applicant's past offenses, demonstrating rehabilitation and maturity.
The applicant's current professional standing and positive character references supported his eligibility for a security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)raisedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation

Key Rule Quoted

“The clearly consistent standard indicates that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 11, 2022
Answer filedMar 8, 2022
Hearing heldSep 15, 2023
Decision dateNov 21, 2023

Cite For

Successful Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Through Rehabilitation Efforts
Impact of Time Elapsed on Criminal Conduct Concerns
Importance of Ongoing Counseling 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 J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found in favor of the applicant on all allegations related to criminal conduct under Guideline J. The applicant had several past offenses, including domestic violence charges, but demonstrated significant rehabilitation efforts and mitigating circumstances that led to the granting of a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested and charged with two domestic violence (DV) offenses: felony aggravated assault-strangulation and simple battery.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	In November 2008, Applicant was charged with possession of marijuana.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	In December 2011, Applicant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal trespass.	For Applicant	Trespassing or Burglary	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	In March 2009, Applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of public nuisance and was fined $390.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	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.