CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01335 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 22-01335

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/12/2024
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Edward W. Loughran
Government Counsel: Jeff A. Nagel
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 37-year-old employee of a defense contractor who had served in the U.S. military from 2011 until his honorable discharge in 2019. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct), primarily related to the applicant's history of alcohol-related incidents, including multiple DUIs and a reported sexual assault incident while intoxicated.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to his past alcohol-related issues and acknowledged that his behavior reflected poor judgment. He provided explanations for his conduct, expressing regret and indicating that he had since moderated his alcohol consumption. The applicant also highlighted his positive contributions to his community, including coaching youth soccer, and noted that he had not driven after drinking since his last DUI in 2015.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that he had sufficiently mitigated the security concerns under Guideline E. The judge found that the applicant's past conduct, while concerning, was outweighed by his demonstrated remorse, current responsible behavior, and commitment to his family and community. The decision granted the applicant eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal 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. 22-01335

grantedSep 12, 2024· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed several incidents, including a DUI arrest in October 2015, for which he received military counseling. Additionally, the applicant was accused of twice grabbing another servicemember's genitals without consent, leading to counseling for violating Articles 128 for being Drunk and Disorderly. During a July 2021 background interview, the applicant falsified information regarding this incident, stating he only "tapped" the coworker's genitals.

Disqualifying conditions raised included AG ¶ 16(c) and AG ¶ 16(e). However, the judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 17(c), AG ¶ 17(d), and AG ¶ 17(e). The decision to grant the clearance was based on the applicant's demonstrated significant personal growth and maturity since his last alcohol-related incident.

The applicant has not driven after consuming alcohol since his 2015 DUI, indicating responsible behavior. Furthermore, his active participation in community activities, such as coaching youth soccer, reflected positive character development. The judge concluded that his conduct no longer casts doubt on his reliability or trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated significant personal growth and maturity since his last alcohol-related incident.
He has not driven after consuming alcohol since his 2015 DUI, indicating responsible behavior.
The applicant actively participates in community activities, such as coaching youth soccer, reflecting positive character development.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(c)appliedThe Offense Is so Minor or so Much Time Has Passed
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedThe Individual Has Acknowledged the Behavior and Obtained Counseling
AG ¶ 17(e)appliedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce Vulnerability

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 30, 2023
Answer filedJan 16, 2024Requested decision based on written record.
Hearing heldAug 8, 2024Hearing convened as scheduled.
Decision dateSep 12, 2024

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Demonstration of Personal Growth and Responsibility
Impact of Community Involvement on Security Clearance Decisions

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant mitigated the personal conduct concerns under Guideline E. The allegations included a DUI arrest and inappropriate conduct towards a fellow servicemember, but the judge concluded that the applicant did not intentionally falsify information during the background interview and ruled in favor of the applicant on all allegations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a–1.c	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—
1.d	Applicant was arrested for DUI in October 2015.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (e) positive steps to reduce vulnerability to exploitation	—
1.e	Applicant was counseled for that DUI by the military.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (e) positive steps to reduce vulnerability to exploitation	—
1.f	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant, without consent, grabbed the penis and testicles of another servicemember twice in a 45-minute period.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant was counseled for violating Articles 128 on two counts for being Drunk and Disorderly, due to an alcohol related incident where he was accused of sexually assaulting a coworker’s genitals on two occasions.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.i	Applicant falsified information during his July 2021 background interview when he stated that a coworker claimed he ‘tapped him on the genitals’ when in fact he engaged in the conduct alleged in subparagraph 1.g above.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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.