CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00802 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00802

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/6/2025
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Government Counsel: Cynthia Ruckno
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 49-year-old information security and data protection specialist who had previously worked for a defense contractor. He applied for a security clearance on February 14, 2022, but was issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on August 15, 2024, citing concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and M (Use of Information Technology). The core allegations included his termination from employment for unauthorized personal use of company resources during work hours and potential falsification of facts during a security interview.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant denied some allegations but admitted to the misuse of company time. He contended that the calculation of unworked hours was inaccurate and expressed regret for his actions. During a security interview, he initially suggested that his termination was due to his unwillingness to relocate but later acknowledged the misuse of company resources when confronted with evidence. He provided a statement from a coworker attesting to his reliability and integrity.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting the security clearance. The judge found that the applicant made prompt efforts to correct his earlier statements during the interview and determined that the misconduct was infrequent and occurred under unique circumstances. The judge concluded that the applicant's actions did not cast doubt on his overall reliability and trustworthiness, thus meeting the criteria for clearance under the national interest.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline MUse of Information Technology · 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. 24-00802

grantedMay 6, 2025· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 49-year-old information security specialist was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The allegations stemmed from his termination from a previous employer for unauthorized personal computer and internet usage during work hours, constituting a misuse of company time. Additionally, he was cited for falsifying material facts during a security interview by initially attempting to conceal this information.

The administrative judge considered disqualifying conditions related to unauthorized use of information technology systems and deliberate misrepresentation. However, the applicant's prompt acknowledgment of his misuse of company resources when confronted with evidence during the security interview served as a significant mitigating factor.

Furthermore, the incidents occurred over four years prior to the security determination, and the judge concluded that they were unlikely to recur, indicating a positive change in behavior. Based on these mitigating factors, the applicant was ultimately granted eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant promptly acknowledged his misuse of company resources when confronted with evidence during the security interview.
The incidents occurred over four years ago and were deemed unlikely to recur, demonstrating a change in behavior.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(b)raisedRefusal to Provide Full, Frank, and Truthful Answers
AG ¶ 40(e)raisedUnauthorized Use of Any Information Technology System

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(a)appliedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the Omission
AG ¶ 17(c)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 41(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Behavior Occurred

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 15, 2024
Answer filedSep 9, 2024
Hearing heldMay 6, 2025Decision issued after written record review.
Decision dateMay 6, 2025

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E Due to Prompt Acknowledgment of Misconduct
Mitigation of Unauthorized Use of Information Technology Under Guideline M Due to Time Elapsed and Changed Behavior
Consideration of Whole-person Factors 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: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant was terminated for misuse of company time due to personal internet usage during work hours, but ultimately ruled in favor of the applicant regarding the allegations of personal conduct. The applicant's acknowledgment of the reasons for his termination during the security interview was considered in the decision, leading to the granting of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was terminated from employment for engaging in personal/non-work-related computer and internet usage during work hours, resulting in a misuse of company time.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant falsified material facts during a personal subject interview by deliberately seeking to conceal the information in SOR ¶ 1.a.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse

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 M (Use of Information Technology) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge addressed concerns regarding the unauthorized use of an information technology system. The applicant admitted to the allegation of unauthorized use, but the judge found that the circumstances surrounding the incident were mitigated, leading to a decision to grant the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation
2.a	Unauthorized use of any information technology system.	For Applicant	Unauthorized Use of System	Admitted	—	—	—

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.