CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01001 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-01001

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/1/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Robert J. Tuider
Government Counsel: Aubrey M. De Angelis
Applicant's Counsel: Todd A. Hull
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 64-year-old senior communications systems engineer employed by a Department of Defense (DOD) contractor since June 2022. The adjudicative guidelines at issue were K (handling protected information), M (use of information technology), and E (personal conduct). The core allegations in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) included the unauthorized downloading of U.S. Government-owned data classified as Export Controlled Information/For Official Use Only onto a personal thumb drive, which violated the contractor's policy and a signed non-disclosure agreement.
During the hearing, the applicant admitted to the factual basis of the allegations but denied that they constituted disqualifying security concerns. He provided explanations and mitigating information, stating that he believed the downloaded data was not proprietary and was based on commercially available papers. He expressed remorse for his actions and emphasized his commitment to safeguarding classified information in the future. Character witnesses testified to his reliability and professionalism, and he had received positive performance evaluations throughout his career.
The administrative judge ruled that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guidelines K and M, while the concerns under Guideline E were considered duplicative. Consequently, the judge denied the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information, stating that the applicant's actions raised significant doubts about his trustworthiness and ability to protect sensitive information, which are critical factors in determining security clearance eligibility.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline KHandling Protected Information · Against Applicant
- Guideline MUse of Information Technology · 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. 23-01001

deniedApr 1, 2025· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

A 64-year-old senior communications systems engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline K (Handling Protected Information) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The applicant's personal conduct, initially a concern under Guideline E, was ultimately mitigated.

The denial stemmed from an incident in July 2018, where the applicant connected his personal thumb drive to a DOD contractor’s Intranet, violating company policy. Over two days, he downloaded U.S. Government-owned data, classified as Export Controlled Information/For Official Use Only, to his personal device. This action raised disqualifying conditions related to handling protected information and improper use of information technology.

Despite the applicant's expressions of remorse, the judge concluded that his actions demonstrated a significant lack of judgment and trustworthiness in handling sensitive government data. These serious security concerns were not sufficiently mitigated, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant downloaded sensitive government data to a personal thumb drive in violation of company policy.
The applicant's actions indicated a lack of judgment and trustworthiness regarding the handling of protected information.
The applicant's conduct raised serious security concerns that were not mitigated despite his claims of remorse.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 34appliedHandling Protected InformationThe applicant's deliberate or negligent failure to comply with rules for handling protected information raised doubts about his trustworthiness.
AG ¶ 40appliedUse of Information TechnologyThe applicant's unauthorized downloading of protected information onto a personal device raised security concerns about his reliability.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 15appliedPersonal ConductPersonal conduct concerns were mitigated as they were duplicative of the issues under Guidelines K and M.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 8, 2023
Answer filedNov 8, 2023
Hearing heldApr 5, 2024
Decision dateApr 1, 2025

Cite For

Security Clearance Denial Due to Mishandling of Protected Information Under Guideline K
Security Clearance Denial Based on Improper Use of Information Technology Under Guideline M
Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns When Duplicative of Other Guidelines.

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: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegation concerning the handling of protected information. The applicant's actions were deemed disqualifying, and while some mitigating factors were acknowledged, they did not outweigh the concerns raised under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Cross allegation of handling protected information security concern as personal conduct security concern.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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 K (Handling Protected Information) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the Applicant mishandled protected information by connecting a personal thumb drive to a DOD contractor's Intranet and downloading classified data, which violated security policies. The ruling was against the Applicant, indicating that the handling of protected information raised significant security concerns that were not mitigated despite the Applicant's remorse and cooperation during the investigation.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
1.a	Handling protected information security concern. In July 2018, Applicant connected his personal thumb drive to a DOD contractor’s Intranet in violation of the DOD contractor’s policy. Over a two-day period, he downloaded U.S. Government-owned data classified as Export Controlled Information/For Official Use Only to his thumb drive.	Against Applicant	Cross Domain Violation	Admitted	(b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location (c) loading/drafting/editing/modifying/storing/transmitting/handling protected information, incl. images, on any unauthorized equipment or medium (g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or sensitive information	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline K). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline M (Use of Information Technology) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant's conduct regarding the use of information technology raised significant security concerns. The applicant admitted to downloading proprietary information onto a personal thumb drive, which violated company policy and a non-disclosure agreement. The judge ruled against the applicant on the allegation related to the use of information technology, indicating that the conduct was disqualifying and not mitigated.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation
2.a	Cross allegation of handling protected information security concern as use of information technology security concern.	Against Applicant	Unspecified IT Misuse	Admitted	(b) unauthorized modification, destruction, or manipulation of, or denial of access to, an IT system or any data in such a system (c) use of any IT system to gain unauthorized access to another system or to a compartmented area within the same system (g) negligence or lax security practices in handling IT that persists despite counseling by management	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline M). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.