CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02838 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02838

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/15/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Troy L. Nussbaum
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 47-year-old employee of a defense contractor who had previously served in the U.S. Army. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline E, primarily related to personal conduct. The allegations included issues of workplace misconduct, falsification of employment history, and a history of legal troubles, including a past investigation for alleged sexual assault.
During the hearing, the applicant admitted to some allegations, such as being debarred from federal contracting due to mischarging labor hours, but denied others, including claims of workplace harassment and making verbal threats. He provided limited documentation to support his claims and acknowledged that he was not eligible for rehire from previous employers. The administrative judge found that the applicant did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns raised in the SOR, concluding that his history of personal conduct and lack of credibility undermined his eligibility for access to classified information. As a result, the judge denied the applicant's request for a security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal 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. 23-02838

deniedJan 15, 2025· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 47-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to a history of issues that raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. The administrative judge found that the applicant's actions, including workplace misconduct, falsification of information, and inappropriate behavior, warranted the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.

The allegations against the applicant included his termination from one defense contractor in August 2021 for policy violations and his resignation without proper notice from another in April 2022. He was debarred from federal government contracting from approximately May 2022 to May 2025 for overstating labor hours. Earlier incidents included a verbal threat to a co-worker in October 2019, an investigation for alleged sexual assault in October 2016, and a U.S. Army letter of intent to deny his clearance in July 2012.

Furthermore, the applicant falsified information on his March 2022 and January 2021 Security Clearance Applications regarding employment activities, investigations, and clearance records. He also falsified material facts during a January 5, 2023 interview with an authorized investigator. These actions, including a history of inappropriate comments and physical contact with co-workers, led to the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of workplace misconduct, including inappropriate comments and physical contact with co-workers.
He was debarred from contracting with the federal government due to falsifying labor hours.
The applicant failed to provide truthful information on his security clearance applications and during interviews.

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(d)appliedCredible Adverse Information That Supports a Whole-person Assessment
AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 22, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 2, 2024via video teleconference
Decision dateJan 15, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Impact of Workplace Misconduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Candor in Security Clearance Applications

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 multiple personal conduct concerns regarding the applicant, including falsification of security clearance applications and a history of workplace issues. The applicant's responses were largely denied, and the judge ruled against him on all allegations, resulting in a denied security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was hired by a defense contractor in March 2022, and in April 2022, he resigned from this employment without providing proper notice.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was terminated from employment with a defense contractor in August 2021 for violating company policies.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant is debarred from contracting with the federal government from about May 2022 to about May 2025 for overstating his labor hours.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	In about October 2019, while employed by a defense contractor, Applicant made a verbal threat towards another employee prompting an investigation by human resources.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	In about October 2016, Applicant was investigated for alleged sexual assault.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	In about July 2012, the U.S. Army Personnel Security Clearance Facility issued Applicant a letter of intent to deny his security clearance.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant falsified his March 2022 SCA in response to employment activities.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security Form	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant falsified his March 2022 SCA and January 2021 SCA in response to employment activities.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security Form	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.i	Applicant falsified his March 2022 SCA and January 2021 SCA in response to investigations and clearance record.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security Form	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.j	Applicant falsified material facts during his January 5, 2023 interview with an authorized investigator.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	—	Denied	—	—	—

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

Full decision

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