CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01297 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01297

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/2/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 24-01297) →
Participants
Judge: John Bayard Glendon
Government Counsel: John B. Renehan
Applicant's Counsel: Grant Couch
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 31-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen who sought a security clearance for the first time while employed as a security guard for a U.S. Government contractor. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Adjudicative Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), J (Criminal Conduct), and D (Sexual Behavior). The core allegations included deliberate misrepresentation in his security clearance application, failure to disclose a prior employment termination for cause, and a recent criminal charge of battery.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to some inaccuracies in his Questionnaire responses, attributing them to oversight and personal issues at the time. He denied intentional wrongdoing, claiming that technical difficulties with his phone and marital problems contributed to his errors. However, he acknowledged that he should have disclosed his termination and the criminal charge. The administrative judge found that the applicant's explanations did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns, particularly given the nature of his past conduct and the seriousness of the allegations.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, denying his request for national security eligibility. The judge concluded that the applicant had not adequately addressed the concerns raised, particularly regarding his credibility and the implications of his past behavior on his suitability for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · Against Applicant
- 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. 24-01297

deniedMay 2, 2025· Hon. John Bayard Glendon· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen was denied a security clearance under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's deliberate omissions on his security questionnaire regarding a May 2021 employment termination by Employer I, a March 2023 criminal charge of battery, and a March 2021 sexual harassment lawsuit in which he and Employer I were sued.

The Statement of Reasons specifically cited the applicant's failure to disclose these events. Disqualifying conditions under the guidelines were raised, while mitigating conditions were also considered.

Ultimately, the judge found the applicant's explanations for these omissions to be insufficient and lacking credibility. This conduct raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately omitted relevant information from his security questionnaire, including a termination for cause and a criminal charge.
The applicant's explanations for his omissions were deemed insufficient and lacked credibility.
The applicant's conduct raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 12raisedSexual Behavior

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(a)rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant did not make prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omissions before being confronted with the facts.
AG ¶ 32(a)rejectedCriminal ConductInsufficient time has passed since the incident, and the applicant continues to work in a position requiring appropriate judgment.
AG ¶ 14(b)rejectedSexual BehaviorThe behavior is recent and cannot be concluded as unlikely to recur.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 8, 2024
Answer filedAug 12, 2024
Hearing heldMar 26, 2025via Microsoft Teams
Decision dateMay 2, 2025

Cite For

Deliberate Omission of Relevant Facts Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Raising Doubts About Judgment Under Guideline J
Sexual Behavior Reflecting Lack of Judgment Under Guideline D

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 D (Sexual Behavior) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant regarding allegations of sexual harassment, which included a lawsuit filed by a subordinate. The applicant's claims of a consensual relationship were not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by the allegations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant and Employer I were sued for sexual harassment.	Against Applicant	Workplace Sexual Misconduct	Denied	—	—	—

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

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 all allegations under Guideline E, determining that he deliberately failed to disclose significant employment and legal issues in his security questionnaire. The applicant's security clearance was denied due to these personal conduct concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Deliberate Failure to Disclose Employment Termination in the Questionnaire.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Deliberate Failure to Disclose in the April 2023 Questionnaire his March 2023 Criminal Charge of Battery.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Deliberate Failure to Disclose in the Questionnaire March 2021 Sexual Harassment Lawsuit.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	May 2021 Employment Termination by Employer I.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—

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 regarding a battery charge from March 2023. The applicant was charged with battery, which was a misdemeanor, and the judge determined that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns associated with this criminal conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Battery Charge in March 2023.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	—	—	—

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.