CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01252 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-01252

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/13/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 23-01252) →
Participants
Judge: Mark W. Harvey
Government Counsel: Jenny G. Bayer
Applicant's Counsel: Alan V. Edmunds
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 24-year-old technician employed by a government contractor, who sought a security clearance but faced allegations under Guideline J (criminal conduct) and Guideline F (financial considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined multiple incidents of criminal behavior, including a guilty plea to unlawful wounding, which resulted in a suspended sentence and probation, as well as other charges related to domestic violence against a former girlfriend.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to several allegations, including the unlawful wounding charge, and provided mitigating information regarding his actions. He described a tumultuous relationship with the girlfriend, characterized by mutual conflict and her mental health issues. The applicant claimed that his actions were in self-defense and that he had completed all court-mandated requirements, including anger management classes. He also presented character evidence from friends and colleagues, emphasizing his professional conduct and commitment to national security.
The administrative judge ultimately ruled against the applicant, denying his eligibility for a security clearance. The judge concluded that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns stemming from his criminal conduct, despite his admissions and character references. The decision highlighted the seriousness of the applicant's past behavior and its implications for national security.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Withdrawn
- 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. 23-01252

deniedSep 13, 2024· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

An applicant for a security clearance was denied due to concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed multiple criminal charges from August to December 2020.

Specifically, the applicant was charged with malicious wounding in August 2020, attempted strangulation causing injury in October 2020, and assault and battery against a family member, along with brandishing a firearm, in December 2020. These incidents led to an administrative discharge from military service in September 2021, resulting in an Other Than Honorable discharge, which the applicant admitted.

Despite presenting character evidence, the judge determined that the seriousness and recency of the admitted criminal conduct, including malicious wounding and assault, were not sufficiently mitigated. Consequently, the application for a security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple charges of criminal conduct, including malicious wounding and assault.
The applicant received an Other Than Honorable discharge from military service.
The seriousness and recency of the criminal conduct outweighed any mitigating factors presented.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J1raisedCriminal Conduct

Procedural Posture

Decision dateSep 13, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Serious Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Impact of Military Discharge Status on Security Clearance Eligibility
Weight of Mitigating Factors in the Presence of Recent Criminal Activity

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 J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to criminal conduct, which included multiple charges of wounding, attempted strangulation, and assault against a family member. The applicant admitted to these allegations and was sentenced to probation following a guilty plea. Ultimately, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied due to unresolved security concerns stemming from his criminal conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	In August 2020, Applicant was arrested and charged with malicious wounding in a state court.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.b	In about October 2020, Applicant was arrested and charged with attempted strangle of another (Ms. C) causing wounding or injury.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.c	In about December 2020, Applicant was arrested and charged with assault and battery against a family or household member and with pointing, holding, or brandishing a firearm.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.d	In about September 2021, he was administratively discharged from a military service, and he received an Other Than Honorable discharge.	Against Applicant	Military UCMJ Violation	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.e	Applicant admitted in about September 2021, he was administratively discharged from a military service, and he received an Other Than Honorable discharge.	Against Applicant	Military UCMJ Violation	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (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.