CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case WHS-C-Case No. 23-00307-R — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case WHS-C-Case No. 23-00307-R

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/31/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert E. Coacher
Government Counsel: Karen A. Moreno-Sayles, Nicole A. Smith
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 53-year-old civilian employee of a defense agency, serving as a security program manager since October 2018. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline D (sexual behavior) and Guideline J (criminal conduct). The allegations included accusations of sexual abuse against his stepdaughter and criminal conduct related to his arrest and indictment for engaging in sexual contact with minors.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to certain actions, such as spanking his stepdaughter and checking for body piercings, but denied any sexual intent or penetration. He claimed his actions were disciplinary and expressed concern for the health of his stepdaughter. The applicant also asserted that the allegations were influenced by family dynamics and mental health issues of the accusers. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant had not mitigated the security concerns related to his sexual behavior, criminal conduct, or personal conduct.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, denying his eligibility for access to classified information. The judge concluded that the applicant's admissions and the nature of the allegations raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability, which were not sufficiently addressed or mitigated during the hearing.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · 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. WHS-C-Case No. 23-00307-R

deniedMay 31, 2023· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 53-year-old security program manager was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from serious allegations of sexual abuse involving his stepdaughters, as well as multiple instances of falsifying information on security clearance applications.

Specifically, the applicant was arrested and indicted on multiple counts of engaging or attempting to engage in sexual contact with his stepdaughters. He was charged with four counts of sexual contacts or acts against one stepdaughter when she was between 12 and 16 years old, and against another. The administrative judge found the applicant's denials of these allegations not credible, citing evidence including testimonies and prior admissions.

Further concerns arose from the applicant's repeated falsification of security clearance applications. He failed to disclose a resignation under unfavorable circumstances and two work misconduct suspensions (two-day and fourteen-day) on his 2011 and 2013 applications. Additionally, on his August 2019 application, he falsely stated he left a position due to completing a two-year detail, rather than after allegations of misconduct. These actions collectively led to the denial of his security clearance, as the administrative judge concluded the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant was indicted on multiple counts of sexual misconduct involving his stepdaughters, raising significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's denials of the allegations were deemed not credible in light of the evidence presented, including testimonies and prior admissions.
The applicant provided false or misleading information on multiple security clearance applications, further undermining his trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 12raisedSexual Behavior
AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 11, 2022
Answer filedSep 9, 2022
Hearing heldApr 5, 2023
Decision dateMay 31, 2023

Cite For

Serious Allegations of Sexual Misconduct Under Guideline D
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Issues of Personal Conduct and Falsification of Information 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 D (Sexual Behavior) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant engaged in criminal sexual behavior by sexually abusing his stepdaughter, which raised significant security concerns. The applicant's denials were not credible, and the judge ruled against him on the allegations, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant engaged in criminal sexual behavior when he sexually abused and/or made sexually abusive contacts with his stepdaughter (SD2).	Against Applicant	Criminal Sexual Conduct	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 multiple instances of falsification on his security clearance applications, failing to disclose unfavorable employment circumstances and disciplinary actions. The applicant's claims of mitigation were not accepted, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant falsified his July 2013 security clearance application when he failed to disclose that he resigned from a position under unfavorable circumstances.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant falsified his September 2011 security clearance application when he failed to disclose that he received a two-day suspension for work misconduct.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
3.c	Applicant falsified his 2013 security clearance application when he failed to disclose that he received a 14-day suspension for work misconduct.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
3.h	Applicant falsified his August 2019 security clearance application when he stated that he left his position because he had completed his two-year detail.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
3.i	Applicant did not falsify his August 2019 security clearance application regarding leaving employment after allegations of misconduct.	For 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 J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on allegations of criminal conduct under Guideline J, specifically regarding charges of sexual contact with minors. The applicant was arrested and indicted on multiple counts related to these allegations, which were deemed disqualifying, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested and indicted on two counts of engaging or attempting to engage in sexual contact with SD1 and SD2.	Against Applicant	Sexual Offense Criminal	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant was charged with four counts of sexual contacts or sexual acts against SD2 and against SD1 when she was between the ages of 12 and 16.	Against Applicant	Sexual Offense Criminal	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	—	—	—

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.