CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00002 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-00002

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/13/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Edward W. Loughran
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Applicant's Counsel: I. Charles McCoullough, III
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 57-year-old employee of a defense contractor who had been employed since June 2018. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines D (sexual behavior), E (personal conduct), and K (handling protected information). The core allegations involved inappropriate conduct towards a female contract employee, including unwanted physical contact and suggestive comments, which led to an investigation initiated by the employee's complaints.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to some interactions with the complainant but denied any romantic intentions or inappropriate behavior. He claimed that the hugs were friendly and that he believed the complainant was comfortable with them initially. The applicant also argued that he had taken steps to mitigate the situation after the complaints were raised. However, the evidence presented included detailed accounts from the complainant, corroborated by witness statements, which indicated a pattern of behavior that made her uncomfortable and was deemed inappropriate for a supervisor-employee relationship.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns under Guidelines D and E, despite mitigating the concerns under Guideline K. The judge emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the impact of the applicant's conduct on the complainant, ultimately denying the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline KHandling Protected Information · 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. 22-00002

deniedApr 13, 2023· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 57-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The Statement of Reasons detailed allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct toward a female contractor, which created an uncomfortable and fearful work environment. These actions were also cited as conduct unbecoming a federal employee, leading to the applicant's resignation in lieu of termination.

The judge found that the applicant's conduct raised significant questions about his judgment and trustworthiness. Specifically, the disqualifying conditions under Guideline D, paragraph 13(c), and Guideline E, paragraphs 16(c) and 16(d), were noted.

While the applicant was found to have mitigated concerns related to Guideline K (handling protected information) through the application of mitigating condition 35(a), this was deemed insufficient to overcome the unmitigated concerns under Guidelines D and E. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's inappropriate conduct towards a female contractor created an uncomfortable and fearful work environment.
The applicant's actions raised significant questions about his judgment and trustworthiness, particularly regarding sexual behavior and personal conduct.
The applicant's breach of handling protected information was acknowledged but deemed insufficient to mitigate the overall concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 13(c)appliedSexual Behavior That Causes an Individual to Be Vulnerable to Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress
AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse Information That Is Not Explicitly Covered Under Any Other Guideline

Mitigating

AG ¶ 35(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior, or It Has Happened so Infrequently or Under Such Unusual Circumstances

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 18, 2022
Answer filedMar 24, 2022
Hearing heldDec 9, 2022
Decision dateApr 13, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Inappropriate Conduct Under Guideline D
Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Mitigation of Handling Protected Information Concerns Under Guideline K

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 judge found that the applicant engaged in sexual harassment of a female contractor, which reflected a severe lack of judgment. This conduct created an uncomfortable and fearful work environment for the contractor, leading to a ruling against the applicant under Guideline D.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
3.a	Sexual harassment of a female contractor reflecting a lack of judgment.	Against Applicant	Workplace Sexual Misconduct	Denied	(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted	—	—

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 engaged in conduct unbecoming a federal employee, resulting in his resignation in lieu of termination. Additionally, the applicant's inappropriate conduct towards a female contractor created an uncomfortable work environment, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Conduct unbecoming a federal employee, resulting in resignation in lieu of termination.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Inappropriate conduct towards a female contractor creating an uncomfortable work environment.	For 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.