CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01424 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01424

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/16/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Government Counsel: Lauren A. Shure
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 65-year-old quality engineer specialist employed by a Department of Defense contractor. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), specifically alleging that the applicant engaged in questionable judgment and dishonesty by willfully damaging equipment while employed as a quality inspector at a previous contractor.
The key facts included the applicant's termination from his previous job due to allegations of intentionally damaging gearboxes during inspections. He initially denied wrongdoing but later admitted to using tweezers to remove paint, which resulted in damage to at least 15 gearboxes. The applicant claimed he was only trying to facilitate shipping but acknowledged intentionally damaging two gearboxes. He submitted a personal statement and letters of recommendation in an attempt to mitigate the concerns but did not provide sufficient evidence to counter the findings of the investigation.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the evidence did not support any mitigating conditions. The judge emphasized that the applicant's actions raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, which are critical for national security eligibility. Consequently, the applicant's request for access to classified information was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal 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. 24-01424

deniedJan 16, 2026· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 65-year-old quality engineer specialist was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to a finding of willful damage to equipment during prior employment as a quality inspector. The Statement of Reasons alleged termination from that position specifically for willfully and intentionally damaging customer property. This raised Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 16(d).

Despite the applicant presenting mitigating evidence, including AG ¶ 17(c) and AG ¶ 17(f), the judge determined these were insufficient to overcome the security concerns. The denial was based on several factors: the applicant's termination for willfully damaging customer property, a finding of questionable judgment and lack of candor during the investigation, and continued minimization of his actions and intent.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's conduct raised significant concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant was terminated for willfully damaging customer property while employed as a quality inspector.
The applicant's actions were found to demonstrate questionable judgment and lack of candor during the investigation.
The applicant's minimization of his actions and intent continued to cast doubt on his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse InformationThe applicant's conduct raised questions about reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedMinor Offense or Unique CircumstancesThe record evidence did not support that the behavior was minor or unlikely to recur.
AG ¶ 17(f)rejectedUnsubstantiated InformationThe investigation's findings were credible and contradicted the applicant's assertions.

Key Rule Quoted

“Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.”
— AG ¶ 15

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 21, 2025
Answer filedMay 28, 2025Requested decision on written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateJan 16, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Personal Conduct Issues
Impact of Willful Damage to Property on Security Clearance Eligibility
Evaluation of Mitigating Evidence in Light of Disqualifying Conduct

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 allegation of termination from employment for willfully and intentionally damaging customer property. The applicant's conduct was deemed inconsistent with the national interest, leading to a denial of security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Termination from employment for willfully and intentionally damaging customer property.	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.

Full decision

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