CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01684 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-01684

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/16/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 31-year-old former Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, who sought a security clearance after being discharged under other than honorable conditions in August 2022. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons citing security concerns under Guideline J (criminal conduct), Guideline D (sexual behavior), and Guideline E (personal conduct). The core allegations included a sexual encounter with a 17-year-old female mentee, which led to a letter of reprimand for sexual assault and obstruction of justice.
The applicant admitted to receiving a reprimand and acknowledged the circumstances surrounding his discharge but denied the allegations of sexual misconduct, claiming the encounter was consensual. He also asserted that he had not been convicted of any crime since the court-martial process was halted when the teenager chose not to testify against him. However, the administrative judge noted that the discharge board found he had committed a generalized sexual assault, and the applicant's inconsistent statements raised questions about his credibility.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns related to his criminal conduct and sexual behavior. The judge emphasized that the dismissal of charges did not equate to a finding of innocence and that the applicant's lack of acceptance of responsibility for his actions undermined his reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately denying his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · Against 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. 23-01684

deniedApr 16, 2024· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old former U.S. Air Force Staff Sergeant was denied a security clearance under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct with a minor, specifically fondling and digital penetration, which was classified as a criminal offense.

Further concerns arose from the applicant's personal conduct, including the destruction of evidence related to the criminal investigation. His failure to accept responsibility for his actions and inconsistent statements about the incident also undermined his credibility and trustworthiness.

The administrative judge concluded that these actions raised significant doubts about the applicant's judgment and reliability, leading to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with a minor, which was classified as a criminal offense.
He destroyed evidence related to the criminal investigation, indicating a lack of candor and responsibility.
The applicant's inconsistent statements about the incident undermined his credibility and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(e)appliedDischarge From the Armed Forces for Reasons Less Than Honorable
AG ¶ 13(a)appliedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature
AG ¶ 13(c)appliedSexual Behavior That Causes Vulnerability to Coercion
AG ¶ 16(e)(1)appliedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation

Key Rule Quoted

“The dismissal of charges does not establish innocence and does not preclude a Judge from concluding that the underlying conduct occurred.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 5, 2023
Answer filedSep 28, 2023
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateApr 16, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Criminal Conduct Involving a Minor
Impact of Dishonesty and Lack of Candor on Security Clearance Eligibility
Significance of Evidence Destruction in Security Clearance Cases

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's sexual behavior with a minor raised significant concerns regarding his judgment and trustworthiness. The judge ruled against the Applicant, noting that he had not accepted responsibility for his actions and that the evidence supported the conclusion of sexual assault, despite the dismissal of criminal charges.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant's sexual behavior with a minor raises questions about his judgment and trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	Criminal Sexual Conduct	Denied	—	—	—

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on allegations of personal conduct, specifically regarding the destruction of evidence related to a criminal investigation and failure to accept responsibility for his actions. The applicant's conduct raised significant concerns about his reliability and suitability for a security clearance, leading to a denied outcome.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant's personal conduct includes destruction of evidence related to a criminal investigation.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant's failure to accept responsibility for his actions raises concerns about his reliability.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge ruled against the applicant on the allegation of inappropriate sexual behavior with a minor, which included fondling and digital penetration. The applicant's conduct was deemed disqualifying despite the absence of a conviction, as the judge found the underlying conduct to have occurred and expressed concerns about the applicant's acceptance of responsibility and overall rehabilitation.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with a minor, which included fondling and digital penetration.	Against Applicant	Sexual Offense Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions	—	—

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.