CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00141 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-00141

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/11/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Government Counsel: Tovah A. Minster
Applicant's Counsel: Dan Meyer
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 45-year-old senior information security engineer employed by a defense contractor, who had previously served in the U.S. Army and was medically retired due to service-related disabilities. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) reviewed his application for a security clearance, which raised concerns under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct), D (Sexual Behavior), and E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) included allegations of physical altercations with women, engagement in prostitution, and receiving sexual services during massages.
The applicant admitted to several allegations, including an incident in which he was arrested for physically intervening in a fight between two women, although he denied choking them. He also acknowledged past involvement with prostitutes while holding a security clearance and admitted to receiving sexual services during massages. The applicant attributed his past behavior to personal struggles following his military service, including depression and marital issues. He claimed that his conduct did not violate local laws and that the charges against him were ultimately dismissed due to lack of evidence.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the evidence presented raised significant security concerns that were not sufficiently mitigated by his explanations. The judge noted the seriousness of the applicant's past conduct, the potential for coercion or exploitation, and the lack of evidence demonstrating rehabilitation or a change in behavior. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · For 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. 23-00141

deniedSep 11, 2024· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old senior information security engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct), D (Sexual Behavior), and E (Personal Conduct). The applicant faced allegations including an arrest for strangulation and obstruction of breathing following a hotel incident involving two women. Additionally, the applicant was alleged to have engaged in prostitution on multiple occasions and received a "happy ending" during a massage, all while holding a security clearance.

Further concerns arose from allegations that the applicant falsified material facts during a polygraph examination and security interviews. While the administrative judge acknowledged that the sexual behavior occurred under unusual circumstances and was unlikely to recur, and that the applicant had sought counseling, these mitigating factors were insufficient.

The denial was based on the applicant's admitted criminal conduct, including the strangulation arrest and prostitution. The administrative judge determined that the applicant's lack of candor during the adjudication process undermined any claims of rehabilitation, raising serious questions about his judgment and reliability.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to criminal conduct, including an arrest for strangulation and engaging in prostitution.
The applicant's lack of candor during the adjudication process undermined any claims of rehabilitation.
The applicant's behavior raised serious questions about his judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)appliedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 13(a)appliedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature
AG ¶ 16(c)appliedQuestionable Judgment
AG ¶ 16(e)appliedVulnerability to Exploitation

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 14(b)appliedUnlikely to Recur

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”
— Exec. Or. 10865 § 2.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 6, 2023
Answer filedJul 23, 2023
Hearing heldJul 17, 2024conducted in-person
Decision dateSep 11, 2024

Cite For

Evaluation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Consideration of Sexual Behavior Under Guideline D
Assessment of Personal Conduct and Lack of Candor 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's sexual behavior occurred under unusual circumstances and is unlikely to recur, leading to a favorable finding for the applicant on this allegation. However, the overall case was denied due to other disqualifying factors related to criminal conduct and lack of candor.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
2.a	The sexual behavior occurred under unusual circumstances and is unlikely to recur.	For Applicant	Unspecified Sexual Behavior	Admitted	—	(a) the behavior occurred prior to or during adolescence and there is no evidence of subsequent similar conduct	—

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 against the applicant on the allegation of falsifying material facts during a polygraph examination and security interviews. The applicant's lack of candor during the adjudication process undermined any claims of rehabilitation or mitigation.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant falsified material facts during a polygraph examination and security interviews.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	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 ruled against the applicant on allegations of criminal conduct, including an arrest for strangulation and obstruction of breathing, and engaging in prostitution while holding a security clearance. The applicant's admissions regarding illegal conduct were deemed sufficient to establish behavior that made him vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress, leading to a denial of his security clearance application.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested for strangulation and obstruction of breathing after an incident involving two women in a hotel room.	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.b	Applicant engaged in prostitution on multiple occasions while holding a security clearance.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.c	Applicant received a 'happy ending' during a massage while holding a security clearance.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—

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.