CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02090 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02090

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/23/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Nicole A. Smith
Case Summary
Applicant was a 32-year-old IT specialist who sought a security clearance after being employed by a Department of Defense contractor. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons citing concerns under Guideline D (sexual behavior), Guideline J (criminal conduct), and Guideline E (personal conduct). The allegations included a history of sexual assault charges against his first wife, multiple domestic violence incidents involving his second wife, and a letter of reprimand for adultery.
During the proceedings, Applicant admitted to the allegations but claimed they were fabricated by his ex-wives and relatives for ulterior motives. He provided explanations for each incident, asserting that he was either falsely accused or acted in self-defense. He presented witnesses who testified to his character and denied witnessing any abusive behavior from him. However, the administrative judge found that Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns, noting the severity and pattern of his past behavior, which included serious criminal allegations and a lack of credible evidence supporting his claims of innocence.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against Applicant, denying his request for security clearance. The judge concluded that the evidence presented did not sufficiently alleviate the concerns regarding Applicant's judgment and reliability, which are critical for national security eligibility.
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. 23-02090

deniedJul 23, 2025· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old IT specialist with military service was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from multiple allegations, including two specifications of sexual assault, a Letter of Reprimand for adultery in February 2016, and two temporary protection orders filed for domestic abuse in May and September 2021.

Further criminal conduct included arrests in February 2016 for domestic abuse (simple assault), in September 2016 for aggravated assault of a family member (with weapon) and simple assault, in November 2018 for aggravated battery (domestic violence of a pregnant victim, felony 2nd degree), and in May 2021 for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.

The judge found the applicant's claims of innocence unconvincing and noted a pattern of abusive behavior, concluding that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns. The applicant admitted to multiple allegations of sexual assault and domestic violence, which raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability, ultimately leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple allegations of sexual assault and domestic violence, which raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability.
The judge found the applicant's claims of innocence to be self-serving and lacking corroboration.
The applicant's history of abusive behavior towards family members contributed to the decision to deny his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 13(a)raisedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature
AG ¶ 13(c)raisedSexual Behavior That Causes an Individual to Be Vulnerable to Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress
AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(e)raisedDischarge From the Armed Forces for Reasons Less Than 'honorable'
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 26, 2024
Answer filedMar 15, 2024
Hearing heldMay 6, 2025via online video teleconferencing
Decision dateJul 23, 2025

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Serious Allegations Under Guidelines D, J, and E
Self-serving Claims of Innocence in the Context of Serious Allegations
Pattern of Abusive Behavior Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility

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: HearingDecided: denied

The applicant faced serious allegations under Guideline D related to sexual behavior, including charges of sexual assault. The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns associated with these allegations, ruling against the applicant on all counts. The applicant's claims of innocence were deemed self-serving and not credible in light of the evidence presented.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed to mitigate the Guideline D (sexual behavior) security concerns.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Sexual Behavior	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was charged with two specifications of sexual assault in violation of Article 120, UCMJ.	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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, which included a Letter of Reprimand for adultery and two temporary protection orders for domestic abuse. The applicant admitted to the allegations but failed to mitigate the concerns raised by his personal conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for adultery in February 2016.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	In May 2021, a temporary protection order was filed against Applicant for domestic abuse.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
3.c	In September 2021, a temporary protection order was filed against Applicant for domestic abuse.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—

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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to criminal conduct, which included multiple charges of domestic violence and aggravated assault. The applicant admitted to the allegations but failed to provide sufficient mitigation to overcome the concerns raised by his criminal history.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested in about February 2016 and charged with domestic abuse - simple assault with attempt to cause bodily injury.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant was arrested in about September 2016 and charged with aggravated assault of a family member (with weapon), and simple assault.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant was arrested in about November 2018 and charged with aggravated battery - domestic violence of a pregnant victim, felony 2nd degree.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant was arrested in about May 2021 and charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—

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.