CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01271 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-01271

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/26/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Darlene Lokey Anderson
Government Counsel: Lauren A. Shure
Applicant's Counsel: Sean D. Rogers
Case Summary
the allegations made against him.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not mitigated the security concerns raised under Guideline K regarding the handling of protected information and Guideline E concerning personal conduct. The judge found that the applicant's actions, including the deliberate mishandling of classified documents and the history of domestic violence allegations, demonstrated a lack of judgment and reliability. Despite the applicant's claims of being framed and his assertions that he had not committed any abuse, the judge noted the weight of the evidence against him, including his admissions of poor judgment and the serious nature of the allegations. The judge emphasized that the applicant's long history of security violations and personal conduct issues raised significant doubts about his trustworthiness and ability to safeguard classified information, ultimately leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline KHandling Protected Information · 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. 23-01271

deniedJan 26, 2026· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 58-year-old Systems Engineer and veteran was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The Statement of Reasons detailed allegations that the applicant revealed his security clearance status and the nature of his work to an individual met through an online dating service on a first date.

Additionally, the applicant was alleged to have committed acts of domestic violence on at least four occasions between 2001 and 2016, and was charged with domestic violence and child abuse. Under Guideline K, it was alleged that the applicant deliberately or negligently failed to comply with rules for handling protected information.

The administrative judge determined that the applicant deliberately mishandled classified information by removing it from his workplace and improperly storing it at home. This, combined with a history of domestic violence and a failure to take responsibility for his actions, raised significant doubts about his trustworthiness and reliability, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately mishandled classified information by removing it from his workplace and improperly storing it at home.
The applicant's history of domestic violence and failure to take responsibility for his actions raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 34(b)raisedCollecting or Storing Protected Information in Any Unauthorized Location
AG ¶ 34(g)raisedAny Failure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Sensitive Information
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse Information That Is Not Explicitly Covered Under Any Other Guideline

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 3, 2024
Answer filedAug 17, 2024
Hearing heldNov 20, 2025
Decision dateJan 26, 2026

Cite For

Mishandling of Classified Information Under Guideline K
Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Impact of Domestic Violence Allegations on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 revealed his security clearance status to a woman he met online, which raised concerns about his personal conduct. The applicant was also found to have committed acts of domestic violence on multiple occasions, although one specific allegation of domestic violence was ruled in his favor. Overall, the judge concluded that the applicant did not mitigate the personal conduct concerns, resulting in a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant revealed his security clearance status and the nature of his work to at least one woman he met through an on-line dating service on a first date.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant committed acts of Domestic Violence on at least four separate occasions between 2001 and 2016.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant was charged with Domestic Violence and Child Abuse.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	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 K (Handling Protected Information) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the Applicant deliberately or negligently failed to comply with rules and regulations for handling protected information, which raised concerns about his trustworthiness and reliability. Despite acknowledging his misconduct and awareness of security policies, the judge ruled against the Applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the security concerns raised by his actions.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant deliberately or negligently failed to comply with rules and regulations for handling protected information.	Against Applicant	Failure to Safeguard or Secure	Admitted	(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c… (b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location	—	—

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

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.