CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01851 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 22-01851

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/6/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 22-01851) →
Participants
Judge: Carol G. Ricciardello
Government Counsel: John C. Lynch
Applicant's Counsel: Samir Nakhleh
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 44-year-old individual who had served honorably in the military from 1999 to 2020 and was employed by a federal contractor since June 2021. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline J (criminal conduct) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The core allegations included a history of domestic violence charges and a hit-and-run incident involving marijuana possession.
The applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR, providing clarifications regarding his past. He acknowledged two disciplinary actions during his military service related to illegal marijuana use and viewing pornography on a government computer. He also admitted to a 2013 domestic violence incident, where he was charged but later had the charges dismissed after completing community service. Additionally, he was involved in a 2020 vehicle accident where he left the scene and was charged with felony failure to stop, which he later pled down to a misdemeanor. The applicant claimed he was unaware of his probation status and denied ownership of the marijuana found near the accident scene.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns raised. The judge noted the applicant's admissions of past criminal conduct and the lack of transparency in his disclosures during the security clearance application process. The judge emphasized that the applicant's history of criminal behavior raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability, leading to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 22-01851

deniedMar 6, 2024· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old male federal contractor with military service was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from admitted past criminal behavior and a lack of candor during the clearance process.

Specifically, the applicant was arrested and charged with assault causing bodily injury/family member, criminal mischief, and interfering with an emergency call. Additionally, in April 2020, he faced charges for felony failure to stop/accident, following too closely, and possession of marijuana.

The judge determined that the applicant failed to provide truthful and candid answers regarding his criminal history, which raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. While some mitigating conditions were considered, the disqualifying conditions related to criminal conduct and personal conduct ultimately led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to past criminal behavior, including domestic violence and a traffic incident involving marijuana.
The judge found the applicant lacked candor during the security clearance process, raising doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(c)raisedCurrently on Parole or Probation
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information
AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)rejectedTime Elapsed Since Criminal BehaviorThe judge found that the applicant's lack of candor and minimization of his conduct indicated that future misconduct was likely to recur.
AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant did not take full responsibility for his actions, indicating a lack of successful rehabilitation.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 14, 2022
Answer filedJan 30, 2023
Hearing heldFeb 7, 2024
Decision dateMar 6, 2024

Cite For

Lack of Candor as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline E
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Importance of Full Disclosure During the Security Clearance Process

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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant failed to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process regarding his criminal history. The allegations were ruled against the applicant, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process regarding his criminal history.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—

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. The applicant had multiple arrests and charges related to assault and traffic offenses, which were not sufficiently mitigated by his claims of community service and other explanations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested and charged with assault causing bodily injury/family member, criminal mischief between $50 and $500, and interfering with an emergency call.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	In April 2020, Applicant was charged with felony failure to stop/accident, following too closely, and possession of marijuana.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	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.