CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02335 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02335

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/3/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Mark W. Harvey
Government Counsel: Cynthia Ruckno
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 49-year-old heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) technician employed by a defense contractor since May 2022. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline J (criminal conduct) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The core allegations included multiple arrests and convictions for various offenses, including theft, battery, and drug-related charges, as well as the falsification of his security clearance application by failing to disclose these incidents.
The applicant admitted to several allegations in the SOR, including multiple instances of criminal conduct, but denied the falsification claim. He provided mitigating information, asserting that he had reformed and was no longer involved in criminal activities, having completed all court-ordered requirements and established a legitimate business. Character references from his supervisor and colleagues described him as reliable and trustworthy, supporting his case for clearance.
The administrative judge ruled that while the concerns under Guideline J were mitigated, the issues under Guideline E were not. The judge concluded that the applicant's failure to disclose significant criminal history on his security clearance application demonstrated a lack of candor and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against 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. 23-02335

deniedJun 3, 2025· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 49-year-old HVAC technician was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's Statement of Reasons detailed a history of criminal conduct, including multiple arrests and charges between 1999 and 2006. These included a 1999 guilty plea for theft and simple battery, resulting in probation, community service, and fines. Subsequent arrests in 2000 and 2001 involved battery and probation violations, with some charges later dismissed via nolle prosequi.

Further incidents included a 2003 guilty plea for misdemeanor obstruction of a police officer, and dismissed charges for simple battery and theft in 2005. Significant drug-related offenses occurred in 2005 and 2006, with guilty pleas for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and felony possession of cocaine, leading to probation, community service, and fines.

While some criminal conduct allegations were mitigated, the applicant's security clearance was ultimately denied because he falsified material facts on his May 10, 2022, security clearance application regarding his criminal history. The judge found his explanations for these falsifications not credible, which raised unmitigated concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application, which raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's explanations for his falsifications were deemed not credible, undermining his claims of rehabilitation and good judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation

Key Rule Quoted

“"No one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 28, 2023
Answer filedJan 9, 2024
Hearing heldMar 18, 2025
Decision dateJun 3, 2025

Cite For

Falsification of Material Facts on a Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Credibility Assessments in Security Clearance Determinations

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 allegation of falsifying material facts on his security clearance application regarding criminal history. The applicant admitted to several criminal conduct allegations, but the judge concluded that the concerns related to his criminal conduct were mitigated.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant falsified material facts on his May 10, 2022 SCA in his responses to the following questions regarding criminal history.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.b	specific text not stated in this decision	Withdrawn	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.c	SOR ¶ 1.c alleges Applicant was arrested in about September 1999 and charged with theft by taking and two counts of simple battery. He pleaded guilty, and he was sentenced to 12 months of probation, 40 hours of community service, and fines and fees of $375.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	SOR ¶ 1.d alleges Applicant was arrested in about July 2000 and charged with one count of battery, two counts of simple battery and one count of disorderly conduct. In about March 2001, the court entered an order of nolle prosequi.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	SOR ¶ 1.e alleges Applicant was arrested in about September 2000 for probation violation. He was on probation from his guilty plea relating to the assault in the retail establishment.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	SOR ¶ 1.f alleges Applicant was arrested in about August 2001 and charged with one count of battery family violence, one count of battery, and two counts of simple battery. In about November 2002, the court entered an order of nolle prosequi.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	SOR ¶ 1.g alleges Applicant was arrested in about October 2001 and charged with one count of battery family violence, two counts of simple battery, and one count of battery. In about November 2002, the court entered an order of nolle prosequi.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	SOR ¶ 1.h alleges in about August 2003, Applicant was charged with felony criminal interference of government property and felony obstruction of a police officer. He negotiated a guilty plea to a misdemeanor obstruction of a police officer in exchange for 12 months of probation and a $250 fine.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	SOR ¶ 1.i alleges in about September 2005, Applicant was charged with simple battery and theft by taking. In about December 2005, the charges were dismissed.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j	SOR ¶ 1.j alleges Applicant was arrested in about October 2005 and charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, possession of firearm during the commission of a crime, and possession of marijuana. He pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to five years of probation, 150 hours of community service, and a $2,000 fine.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
1.k	SOR ¶ 1.k alleges in about April 2006, Applicant was charged with felony possession of cocaine, felony possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, possession of marijuana, carrying a concealed weapon, and speeding. In exchange for a guilty plea to possession of cocaine, he was sentenced to 2 years’ probation.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	Criminal Conduct	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 that the applicant had a history of criminal conduct, including multiple arrests and guilty pleas related to theft and battery. Despite these concerns, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant on the allegations, indicating that the criminal conduct was mitigated by various factors.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.c	Applicant was arrested in about September 1999 and charged with theft by taking and two counts of simple battery. He pleaded guilty, and he was sentenced to 12 months of probation, 40 hours of community service, and fines and fees of $375.	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant was arrested in about July 2000 and charged with one count of battery, two counts of simple battery and one count of disorderly conduct. In about March 2001, the court entered an order of nolle prosequi.	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant was arrested in about September 2000 for probation violation. He was on probation from his guilty plea relating to the assault in the retail establishment.	For Applicant	Probation or Court Order Violation	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	SOR ¶ 1.f alleges Applicant was arrested in about August 2001 and charged with one count of battery family violence, one count of battery, and two counts of simple battery. In about November 2002, the court entered an order of nolle prosequi.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	SOR ¶ 1.g alleges Applicant was arrested in about October 2001 and charged with one count of battery family violence, two counts of simple battery, and one count of battery. In about November 2002, the court entered an order of nolle prosequi.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	SOR ¶ 1.h alleges in about August 2003, Applicant was charged with felony criminal interference of government property and felony obstruction of a police officer. He negotiated a guilty plea to a misdemeanor obstruction of a police officer in exchange for 12 months of probation and a $250 fine.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	SOR ¶ 1.i alleges in about September 2005, Applicant was charged with simple battery and theft by taking. In about December 2005, the charges were dismissed.	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j	SOR ¶ 1.j alleges Applicant was arrested in about October 2005 and charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, possession of firearm during the commission of a crime, and possession of marijuana. He pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
1.k	SOR ¶ 1.k alleges in about April 2006, Applicant was charged with felony possession of cocaine, felony possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, possession of marijuana, carrying a concealed weapon, and speeding. In exchange for a guilty plea to possession of cocaine, he was sentenced to 2 years’ probation.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
2.a	SOR ¶ 2.a cross-alleges the information alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c through 1.k under the criminal conduct guideline.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	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.