CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01288 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01288

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/30/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Roger C. Wesley
Government Counsel: Jenny G. Bayer
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 33-year-old employee of a defense contractor seeking a security clearance. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under the criminal conduct and personal conduct guidelines. The allegations included multiple arrests and charges from 2012 to 2024, including a felony robbery conviction in 2012, unlicensed driving, and various traffic violations. The applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR but did not provide any explanations or mitigating factors.
The administrative judge found that the applicant's extensive criminal history, particularly the felony conviction and subsequent driving offenses, raised significant security concerns regarding his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. The judge noted that the applicant had not taken any remedial actions to address his past behavior, which spanned over a decade. The judge concluded that the applicant failed to mitigate the concerns raised by his criminal conduct and personal conduct, resulting in a denial of eligibility for access to classified information. The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining high standards of trustworthiness for individuals in sensitive positions.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 24-01288

deniedApr 30, 2025· Hon. Roger C. Wesley· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of criminal conduct, including multiple arrests and a felony conviction, which raised significant security concerns.

Between October 2017 and May 2024, the applicant was arrested and charged with criminal violations on multiple occasions. This pattern of behavior led to allegations that the applicant's conduct demonstrated questionable judgment, a lack of candor, dishonesty, and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. Such actions raised doubts about his reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.

The judge concluded that the applicant's actions indicated a consistent pattern of questionable judgment and unreliability. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate rehabilitation or compliance with laws following his criminal conduct. Consequently, the applicant was denied eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of multiple arrests and a felony conviction, which raised security concerns.
The applicant failed to demonstrate rehabilitation or compliance with laws after his criminal conduct.
The judge concluded that the applicant's actions indicated a pattern of questionable judgment and unreliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

JraisedCriminal Conduct
EraisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information may only be granted 'upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.'”
— Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 9, 2024
Answer filedOct 14, 2024Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateApr 30, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to a Pattern of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Failure to Demonstrate Rehabilitation Under Guideline E
Consideration of Multiple Offenses as Indicative of Questionable Judgment 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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegations, determining that the applicant's questionable judgment and lack of candor raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. The applicant admitted to the allegations, but the judge concluded that the personal conduct security concerns were not mitigated, resulting in a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant's conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about his reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.	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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on allegations of criminal conduct, which included multiple arrests and charges for various offenses, including felony robbery and traffic violations. The applicant admitted to the allegations, and the judge concluded that the applicant's lengthy history of criminal incidents did not allow for any mitigating conditions to apply, resulting in a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant allegedly was arrested and charged on multiple occasions between October 2017 and May 2024 with criminal violations.	Against Applicant	Multiple Arrests Pattern	Conduct No Charge	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.