CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02358 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02358

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/17/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Ross D. Hyams
Government Counsel: Nicholas T. Temple
Applicant's Counsel: Martin P. Hogan
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 52-year-old software engineer who had worked for a defense contractor since 2024. He faced security concerns under Guidelines E (personal conduct) and D (sexual behavior) due to allegations of engaging in sexual activities for pay, including hiring prostitutes from 2005 to 2014, while holding a security clearance. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailed multiple instances of this conduct, as well as omissions regarding his sexual behavior and financial transactions with foreign nationals.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to several allegations, including hiring prostitutes and sending money to foreign nationals, but denied others, claiming he did not believe he was required to disclose certain information. He argued that his actions were private and consensual, and he attempted to mitigate concerns by stating he had stopped hiring prostitutes and had provided information to law enforcement about prostitution rings. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant's explanations did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns, particularly given the nature and duration of his conduct, as well as his failure to report relevant information in a timely manner. Consequently, the judge ruled to deny the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · Against Applicant
- 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. 24-02358

deniedFeb 17, 2026· Hon. Ross D. Hyams· hearing

Summary

A 52-year-old software engineer was denied a security clearance under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior) and E (Personal Conduct) due to concerns about his personal conduct and a history of paying for sexual acts. The Statement of Reasons detailed that the applicant paid women for sexual acts on multiple occasions between approximately 2005 and 2014.

Additionally, the applicant deliberately omitted this history from his December 2007 background investigation. He also failed to disclose his history of paying for sexual acts and his use of an illegal drug while holding a security clearance during his November 2015 background investigation.

The judge found the applicant's explanations not credible and identified ongoing patterns of behavior that posed a security threat. Consequently, the applicant failed to mitigate the concerns regarding his personal conduct and sexual behavior, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to mitigate concerns regarding personal conduct and sexual behavior.
The judge found the applicant's explanations not credible and noted ongoing patterns of behavior that raised security concerns.
The applicant's actions were deemed to pose a continuing security threat.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation
AG ¶ 13(a)raisedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature
AG ¶ 13(b)raisedPattern of Compulsive, Self-destructive, or High-risk Sexual Behavior
AG ¶ 13(c)raisedSexual Behavior That Causes Vulnerability to Coercion
AG ¶ 13(d)raisedSexual Behavior of a Public Nature or That Reflects Lack of Discretion

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 26, 2025
Answer filedApr 1, 2025
Hearing heldJan 5, 2026
Decision dateFeb 17, 2026

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Failure to Mitigate Sexual Behavior Under Guideline D
Credibility Issues in Applicant's Testimony Regarding Personal Conduct and 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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant engaged in a pattern of paying women for sexual acts, which raised significant concerns under Guideline D. Despite the applicant's claims of consensual behavior and attempts at self-counseling, the judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the conduct was disqualifying and undermined his eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Sexual Behavior	Unknown	(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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on multiple allegations of personal conduct, including paying women for sexual acts and deliberately omitting this history from background investigations. The applicant's explanations were deemed not credible, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant paid women for sexual acts on multiple occasions, from approximately 2005 through approximately 2014.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant deliberately omitted his history of paying women for sexual acts from his December 2007 background investigation.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Sexual Behavior	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.g	Applicant deliberately omitted his history of paying women for sexual acts and use of an illegal drug while holding a security clearance from his November 2015 background investigation.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Sexual Behavior	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.c–1.j	7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (6 against, 1 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

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.