CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01243 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-01243

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/31/2024
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Government Counsel: Adrienne M. Driskill
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 34-year-old employee of a defense contractor who sought a security clearance. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), specifically alleging that the applicant had opened checking accounts on behalf of an acquaintance, which raised questions about his judgment and reliability.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to opening the accounts but denied any fraudulent intent, explaining that the acquaintance was experiencing financial difficulties due to a divorce. He ceased involvement with the accounts over seven years prior and sought advice from his father regarding the situation, indicating a recognition of the questionable nature of his actions. The applicant presented evidence of his positive work history and character, including testimonials from supervisors.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that the concerns raised under Guideline E were mitigated by the time elapsed since the conduct, the applicant's positive work history, and his proactive steps to discontinue the questionable behavior. The judge determined that granting the applicant security clearance was consistent with the national interest.
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. 23-01243

grantedJan 31, 2024· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant opened two checking accounts in his name on behalf of an acquaintance, thereby circumventing banking regulations. This raised a disqualifying condition under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 16(d).

The applicant admitted to opening the accounts but denied any fraudulent intent, explaining that the actions occurred during a divorce and ceased over seven years prior to the review. The administrative judge applied mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17(c) and AG ¶ 17(e).

The judge determined that the applicant had ceased the questionable conduct over seven years ago, demonstrated a distinguished work history, and earned the respect of his supervisors. Ultimately, the applicant's actions were deemed unlikely to recur and did not cast doubt on his reliability, leading to the decision to grant eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant ceased the questionable conduct over seven years ago.
The applicant demonstrated a distinguished work history and respect from supervisors.
The applicant's actions were deemed unlikely to recur and did not cast doubt on his reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse InformationThe applicant's conduct of opening accounts for another raised questions about judgment.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(c)appliedMinor Offense or Unique CircumstancesThe conduct was infrequent and occurred under unique circumstances.
AG ¶ 17(e)appliedPositive Steps to Reduce VulnerabilityThe applicant took steps to discontinue the accounts and sought advice.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 18, 2023
Answer filedOct 18, 2023
Hearing heldNov 3, 2023
Decision dateJan 31, 2024

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
Impact of Time Elapsed on the Assessment of Past Conduct

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant opened two checking accounts on behalf of another individual, which raised personal conduct concerns. However, the applicant mitigated these concerns by demonstrating that he acted without fraudulent intent and sought advice regarding his actions. The outcome was favorable for the applicant, resulting in the granting of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant opened two checking accounts in his name on behalf of another, thereby circumventing the rules and regulations of the banking system.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied with Explanation	—	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse

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.