CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00615 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00615

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/16/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert E. Coacher
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 31-year-old engineer employed by a defense contractor, who sought a security clearance. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline E, personal conduct, primarily related to the applicant's criminal history and drug use. The SOR included allegations of multiple arrests, including retail theft, disorderly conduct, and driving with a suspended license, as well as unreported drug use involving marijuana and Adderall.
During the hearing, the applicant admitted to most of the allegations, including his criminal charges and drug use, but denied some specific claims regarding his failure to disclose this information on his security clearance application. He explained that he did not take the application process seriously and believed he could clarify any issues during his background interview. The administrative judge found that the applicant's admissions and explanations did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns, particularly regarding his pattern of dishonesty and disregard for legal obligations. Consequently, the judge ruled to deny the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance, emphasizing the importance of trustworthiness and reliability in safeguarding national security.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- 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. 24-00615

deniedApr 16, 2025· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old engineer was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to a history of criminal charges, drug use, and a lack of candor during the application process. The allegations included multiple criminal charges between 2011 and 2022, such as retail theft, minor in possession of alcohol, disorderly conduct, assault causing bodily injury, and three separate charges for driving with a suspended license. Two of the earlier charges were nolle prossed, and the assault charge was pleaded down to disorderly conduct.

Additionally, the applicant admitted to using marijuana in 2008-2009 and again in July 2020, and Adderall without a prescription between February and May 2021. The denial was further supported by findings that the applicant falsified his May 2023 security clearance application by failing to disclose arrests and drug use. He also provided false answers during a July 2023 background interview by not disclosing his criminal record and gave a false answer in April 2024 by denying marijuana use in response to government interrogatories.

The judge determined that the applicant's admitted criminal charges and drug use, combined with his repeated lack of candor, raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. This pattern of untrustworthy behavior and violations of the law led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple criminal charges and drug use, including marijuana and Adderall without prescriptions.
The applicant's lack of candor during the security clearance application process raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's repeated violations of the law indicated a pattern of untrustworthy behavior.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 26, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 19, 2025
Decision dateApr 16, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Lack of Candor as a Significant Factor in Security Clearance Decisions
Pattern of Criminal Behavior Impacting Trustworthiness and Reliability

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 instances of personal conduct concerns against the applicant, including criminal charges and drug use. The applicant's failure to disclose these issues on security forms and during interviews contributed to the decision to deny the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was charged with retail theft in October 2011, which charge was nolle prossed.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was charged with a minor in possession of alcohol in February 2012, which charge was nolle prossed.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant was charged with disorderly conduct in July 2014.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant used marijuana between 2008 and 2009, and again in July 2020.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment GeneralNOT DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant used Adderall, without a lawful prescription, at various times, between February and May 2021.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment GeneralFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Other
1.f	Applicant was charged in November 2021, and convicted of driving with a suspended, denied, canceled, or revoked driver’s license.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant was charged in June 2022, with driving with a suspended, denied, canceled, or revoked driver’s license.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant was charged in September 2022, with assault causing bodily injury, which was pleaded down to disorderly conduct—fighting/violent behavior.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	Applicant was charged in September 2022, with driving with a suspended, denied, canceled, or revoked driver’s license.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.j	Applicant falsified his May 2023 SCA when he failed to disclose his arrests, as listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.f-1.i, and when he failed to disclose his marijuana and Adderall use, as described in SOR ¶¶ 1.d-1.e above.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Other
1.k	Applicant gave false answers to an investigator in July 2023 during his background interview (BI), when he failed to disclose his criminal record, as stated above in SOR ¶¶ 1.f-1.i.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Other
1.l	Applicant gave a false answer in April 2024, in response to Government interrogatories when he denied using marijuana, a drug illegal under federal law.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Other
1.m	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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.