CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01426 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-01426

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/24/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Government Counsel: John C. Lynch
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 28-year-old web designer who sought a security clearance after previously having one denied in February 2019. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior) and J (Criminal Conduct). The core allegations involved the applicant's admission to deliberately searching for and viewing images of naked underage children and child sexual abuse from approximately 2014 to 2019.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR, acknowledging that he had engaged in this behavior while in college. He claimed to have stopped viewing child pornography in late 2018 and had installed software on his personal computer to block access to such content. However, he did not seek counseling or therapy for his past behavior. The administrative judge found that the applicant's admissions established disqualifying conditions under the guidelines, as his actions reflected a lack of judgment and made him vulnerable to coercion. Ultimately, the judge ruled to deny the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance, concluding that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised by his past conduct.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · 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. 23-01426

deniedSep 24, 2024· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old web designer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant admitted to deliberately searching for and viewing child pornography and child sexual abuse images on various occasions between approximately 2014 and 2019. This conduct was identified as a criminal act, raising significant questions about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.

Despite the applicant's efforts to mitigate his behavior, including installing software to block access to such content, the judge found these actions insufficient. A key factor in the denial was the applicant's failure to seek counseling or treatment for his behavior, which indicated a lack of rehabilitation.

The allegations specifically cited the applicant's repeated viewing of child pornography over a five-year period. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's actions presented significant security concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to searching for and viewing child pornography, which is a criminal act.
The applicant's conduct raised significant concerns about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.
The applicant did not seek counseling or treatment for his behavior, indicating a lack of rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 13(a)appliedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature
AG ¶ 13(c)appliedSexual Behavior That Causes Vulnerability to Coercion
AG ¶ 13(d)appliedSexual Behavior Reflecting Lack of Discretion
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 24, 2023
Answer filedNov 20, 2023
Hearing heldSep 6, 2024conducted by video teleconference
Decision dateSep 24, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Impact of Sexual Behavior on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline D
Lack of Rehabilitation as a Factor in 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 D (Sexual Behavior) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant was found to have deliberately searched for and viewed images of naked underage children and child sexual abuse between 2014 and 2019. Despite admitting to the allegations and taking steps to mitigate his behavior, the judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that his actions were inconsistent with national security interests.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
1.a	On various occasions between at least approximately 2014 to 2019, you deliberately searched for and viewed images of naked underage children and child sexual abuse.	Against Applicant	Child Pornography Involvement	Admitted	(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted (c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress	—	Claimed Other Claimed Other

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the allegations of criminal conduct under Guideline J, which involved the applicant's admission to searching for and viewing images of child sexual abuse. The decision was based on the applicant's conduct being criminal in nature and reflecting a lack of good judgment, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	The wording of SOR ¶ 2.a is identical to SOR ¶ 1.a, and it cross-alleges a security concern under Guideline J.	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.