CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01723 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01723

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/12/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Wilford H. Ross
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Applicant's Counsel: Sean D. Rogers
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 37-year-old former aircraft maintenance support engineer for a defense contractor, who had previously served in the U.S. Air Force. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct) due to an incident involving voyeurism and tampering with evidence related to his then-13-year-old daughter. The applicant admitted to the allegations under Guidelines E and J, which involved placing a camera in the bathroom to record his daughter without her knowledge.
Key facts established during the proceedings included that the applicant placed a cell phone in the bathroom to record a video while his daughter showered. After she discovered the camera, she informed her mother, who then contacted the police. The applicant deleted the video and moved the camera before the police arrived. He was subsequently charged with voyeurism and tampering with evidence, to which he pled no contest and received a conditional discharge. The applicant claimed he had no prurient intent and was conducting a home security analysis, but his explanations regarding the deletion of the video were inconsistent.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the evidence presented raised significant doubts about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. The judge emphasized that the applicant's actions demonstrated a serious lapse in judgment and a failure to uphold the trust required for national security eligibility. The decision highlighted the importance of protecting national security and the need for individuals in positions of trust to maintain a high standard of conduct.
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. 24-01723

deniedFeb 12, 2026· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance following allegations under DOHA Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct). The case centered on a voyeurism incident involving his daughter. The applicant admitted to the allegation under Guideline E but denied the others.

The judge ultimately found against the applicant on all three guidelines. Disqualifying conditions cited included engaging in sexual behavior involving a criminal offense, actions reflecting questionable judgment and a lack of candor, and criminal activity that raised doubts about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.

The denial was based on the applicant's engagement in voyeurism, which demonstrated a lack of judgment and discretion. Furthermore, his failure to take responsibility for his actions and inconsistent explanations regarding his conduct undermined his credibility and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant engaged in voyeurism involving his daughter, which reflects a lack of judgment and discretion.
He failed to take responsibility for his actions, undermining his credibility and trustworthiness.
The applicant's inconsistent explanations regarding his conduct raised further doubts about his reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 13(a)raisedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature
AG ¶ 13(c)raisedSexual Behavior That Causes Vulnerability to Coercion
AG ¶ 13(d)raisedSexual Behavior Reflecting Lack of Discretion
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Areas
AG ¶ 16(e)raisedConcealment of Information Creating Vulnerability
AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 25, 2024
Answer filedMar 26, 2025
Hearing heldJul 17, 2025
Decision dateFeb 12, 2026Decision delayed due to federal government shutdown.

Cite For

Lack of Judgment in Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Failure to Mitigate Disqualifying Conditions Related to Sexual Behavior

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: HearingDecided: denied

The Applicant was found to have engaged in voyeuristic behavior involving his minor daughter, which led to criminal charges and a conditional discharge. The judge ruled against the Applicant, determining that his actions reflected a lack of judgment and could subject him to undue influence or coercion, ultimately denying his eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in sexual behavior that involves a criminal offense; reflects a lack of judgment or discretion; or may subject the Applicant to undue influence, coercion, exploitation, or duress.	Against Applicant	Criminal Sexual Conduct	Denied	(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted	—	—

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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant engaged in actions involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. The allegations were formally ruled against the applicant, leading to a denial of security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in actions that involve questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant engaged in criminal activity that raises significant concerns about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. As a result, the application for clearance was denied based on the applicant's criminal conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he engaged in criminal activity that creates doubt about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	Sexual Offense Criminal	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

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.