CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00346 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-00346

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/20/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 23-00346) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Carol G. Ricciardello
Government Counsel: Mark D. Lawton
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 33-year-old individual who had been employed by a federal contractor since August 2019. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline E, personal conduct, primarily due to the applicant's failure to disclose multiple arrests and charges on his security clearance application. The SOR detailed incidents including domestic battery, driving under the influence (DUI), and other offenses, which raised questions about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to some of the allegations in the SOR but denied others, claiming that he did not think he needed to disclose certain arrests. He provided explanations for his actions, stating that charges were dismissed in several instances. However, the administrative judge found the applicant's explanations lacking in credibility, particularly regarding his failure to disclose significant arrests, including DUI and domestic battery. The judge noted that the applicant's repeated involvement with law enforcement and his lack of candor during the security clearance process were concerning.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline E. The judge emphasized that the applicant's conduct demonstrated questionable judgment and a lack of reliability, which posed a risk to national security. As a result, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal 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. 23-00346

deniedNov 20, 2023· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old federal contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to a pattern of undisclosed arrests and a lack of candor during the investigation. The Statement of Reasons detailed several allegations, including the applicant's failure to disclose multiple arrests and charges on his security clearance application. These undisclosed incidents included arrests for DUI and other offenses, involvement in fights requiring police intervention, multiple charges of domestic battery, and an arrest for burglary and theft.

The judge determined that the applicant's explanations for these omissions were not credible, indicating a deliberate lack of truthful information provided during the investigation. This raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines paragraphs 16(a), 16(c), and 16(e).

Ultimately, the denial was based on the applicant's failure to disclose multiple arrests and charges, the non-credible explanations for these omissions, and the repeated involvement in criminal conduct. These factors collectively raised significant concerns about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to disclose multiple arrests and charges on his security clearance application.
The judge found the applicant's explanations for his omissions not credible, indicating a lack of candor.
The applicant's repeated involvement in criminal conduct raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation

Key Rule Quoted

“The cornerstone of the security clearance process is that the Government trusts those who are granted security clearances to be honest and self-report issues or conduct even when no one is looking.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 29, 2023
Answer filedApr 6, 2023
Hearing held—Decided on the written record.
Decision dateNov 20, 2023

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Criminal History Under Guideline E
Credibility Issues in Personal Conduct Cases
Importance of Honesty in Security Clearance Applications

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 all allegations under Guideline E, citing a pattern of dishonesty and failure to disclose multiple arrests and charges. The applicant admitted to some allegations but denied others, and the judge concluded that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised by his conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed to disclose multiple arrests and charges on his security clearance application.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI and other offenses.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant was involved in fights requiring police intervention.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant failed to provide truthful information during the investigation.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant was charged with domestic battery on multiple occasions.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant was arrested for burglary and theft.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	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.