CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01542 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01542

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/14/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Darlene Lokey Anderson
Government Counsel: Andrew H. Henderson
Case Summary
Darlene Anderson, a 37-year-old single applicant with a high school diploma and some college education, sought a security clearance for her position as an Accounting Specialist with a defense contractor. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline E, Personal Conduct, due to her history of workplace misconduct, including multiple terminations and a voluntary resignation linked to unsatisfactory performance. The allegations raised questions about her reliability and trustworthiness.
During the proceedings, Anderson admitted to the allegations in the SOR, which included being terminated from three jobs for unprofessional behavior and leaving a fourth position after receiving notice of unsatisfactory performance. She acknowledged her strong personality and difficulty in managing her tone and behavior in stressful situations. Although she expressed a desire to improve and provided character references from a previous employer, the administrative judge found that her history of misconduct demonstrated a pattern of questionable judgment and lack of candor.
The administrative judge ruled against Anderson, concluding that her repeated violations of workplace rules and her admissions of misconduct raised significant concerns about her suitability for a security clearance. The judge determined that none of the mitigating conditions applied to her case sufficiently to overcome the disqualifying factors, emphasizing the importance of trust and reliability in positions requiring access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 24-01542

deniedAug 14, 2025· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old single female with a bookkeeping background was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from a history of workplace misconduct, including four terminations from employment between 2016 and 2023.

Specific allegations included a February 2023 termination for a gross violation of ethics rules, involving the use or threatened use of confidential information to negotiate a pay raise. In October 2022, she left a position following notice of unsatisfactory performance. Earlier terminations occurred in June 2020 for unprofessional behavior, and in November 2016 for unprofessional behavior after multiple reprimands.

The judge found that the applicant's conduct demonstrated a pattern of immaturity, dishonesty, and rule violations. Despite her admissions and claims of personal growth, these were deemed insufficient to mitigate the serious concerns regarding her reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of workplace misconduct, including multiple terminations for unprofessional behavior.
The applicant's conduct demonstrated a pattern of immaturity, dishonesty, and rule violations.
The applicant's claims of personal growth were insufficient to mitigate the serious concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse Information Not Explicitly Covered Under Any Other Guideline
AG ¶ 16(f)raisedViolation of a Written or Recorded Commitment Made by the Individual to the Employer

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance is a privilege and not a right. To be found eligible, an applicant must consistently demonstrate good judgment, responsibility, and trustworthiness.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 31, 2024
Answer filedJan 31, 2025
Hearing heldJul 9, 2025
Decision dateAug 14, 2025

Cite For

Pattern of Workplace Misconduct Leading to Termination Under Guideline E
Insufficient Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues
Serious Concerns About Reliability and Trustworthiness in Security Clearance Evaluations

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 that the applicant was terminated from multiple positions due to workplace misconduct, including unprofessional behavior and a gross violation of ethics. The applicant admitted to the allegations but did not provide sufficient mitigation to overcome the concerns regarding her personal conduct, resulting in a denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	In about February 2023, Applicant was terminated from her position of employment for a gross violation of the ethic rules and regulations and company standards by using or threatening to use confidential information as a threat or bargaining tool to negotiate a pay raise.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	In about October 2022, Applicant left her position of employment following notice of unsatisfactory performance.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	In about June 2020, Applicant was terminated from her position of employment for unprofessional behavior.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	In about November 2016, Applicant was terminated from her position of employment for unprofessional behavior following numerous verbal reprimands and a written disciplinary action.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—

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.