CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00761 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 22-00761

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/25/2025
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 22-00761) →See the appeal decision (Case 22-00761) →See the hearing decision (Case 22-00761) →
Participants
Judge: Robert J. Tuider
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Applicant's Counsel: Daniel S. Conway
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 35-year-old cyber operations lead analyst employed by a defense contractor, seeking to retain his Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearance. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines J (criminal conduct) and E (personal conduct), primarily related to three arrests for domestic violence involving two former spouses. The SOR indicated that the DOD could not find it consistent with national interest to grant or continue the applicant's security clearance.
The applicant admitted to the arrests but denied the underlying conduct, asserting that the charges were dismissed due to lack of evidence. He provided testimony regarding the incidents, claiming that both former spouses had recanted their accusations. The applicant also volunteered to attend domestic violence classes during a temporary restraining order (TRO) period, which he completed. He emphasized that he had not physically harmed either spouse and sought to mitigate the concerns by demonstrating his commitment to personal improvement and compliance with legal requirements.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that he had mitigated the security concerns under both Guidelines J and E. The judge found the applicant's testimony credible and noted the absence of corroborating evidence against him, such as police reports or medical records. The judge acknowledged the applicant's proactive steps, including attending domestic violence classes, and ultimately granted eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal 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. 22-00761

grantedFeb 25, 2025· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old cyber operations lead analyst was granted a security clearance despite allegations of domestic violence under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and J (Criminal Conduct). The allegations stemmed from three separate incidents. The first occurred on May 17, 2017, when the applicant was arrested and charged with misdemeanor abuse of his first wife, leading to a temporary restraining order (TRO) based on claims of physical and verbal abuse.

Subsequently, in July 2019, the applicant was arrested and charged with misdemeanor abuse of his second wife, an incident documented through an OPM Personal Subject Interview. A third incident on February 8, 2020, again involved an arrest for domestic violence against his second wife and resulted in another TRO; this charge was later dismissed with prejudice. Police reports for the 2019 and 2020 arrests were not available in the case file.

Ultimately, all three domestic violence allegations were dismissed because the complainants failed to appear in court. The judge found the applicant's testimony credible and consistent, and the applicant successfully expunged all related arrest records. Based on these factors, the applicant's security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's domestic violence charges were dismissed due to the complainants' failure to appear in court.
The judge found the applicant's testimony credible and consistent throughout the proceedings.
The applicant successfully obtained expungement of all arrest records related to the allegations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31raisedCriminal ConductThe government raised concerns regarding the applicant's criminal conduct based on multiple domestic violence allegations.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 16appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant's evidence and credible testimony mitigated concerns regarding personal conduct.
AG ¶ 30appliedCriminal ConductThe applicant's denials and the lack of corroborating evidence against him mitigated the criminal conduct concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 8, 2022
Answer filedSep 7, 2022
Hearing heldFeb 28, 2023via Microsoft Teams
Decision dateFeb 25, 2025

Cite For

Mitigation of Domestic Violence Allegations Under Guideline J
Credibility Assessment in Security Clearance Cases
Expungement of Arrest Records as a Mitigating Factor

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: granted

The judge found in favor of the applicant regarding all allegations of criminal conduct under Guideline J. The applicant admitted to the arrests but denied committing the underlying offenses. The judge deemed the applicant's testimony credible and noted that the charges were dismissed due to lack of evidence or the complainants' failure to appear in court.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	On May 17, 2017, Applicant was arrested and charged with abuse of a family member and household members, a misdemeanor offense. The complainant was Applicant’s first wife. On May 18, 2017, a temporary restraining order (TRO) was entered against him on behalf of his then-wife. Her petition for a TRO claimed physical and verbal abuse, all of which occurred on May 17, 2017.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation
1.b	In July 2019, Applicant was arrested and charged with abuse of family and household members, a misdemeanor offense. The complainant was Applicant’s second wife. The only source document contained in the case file describing this incident is an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Personal Subject Interview (PSI) of the Applicant conducted under oath on November 3, 2020. The case file does not contain a police report describing the July 2019 arrest.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation
1.c	On February 8, 2020, Applicant was arrested and charged with a domestic violence crime and a TRO was entered against him. Again, the complainant was Applicant’s second wife. The case file does not contain a police report describing the February 8, 2020 arrest. Such a report and/or medical records could have corroborated or refuted respective parties’ version of events. The charge was dismissed with prejudice.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation

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.