CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02441 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02441

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/7/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Government Counsel: John B. Renehan
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 42-year-old employee of a defense contractor who submitted a security clearance application in April 2024. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on July 2, 2025, citing security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and J (Criminal Conduct). The core allegations included willful falsifications in the security clearance application regarding his criminal history, which included multiple charges and convictions related to drug possession and driving under the influence.
The applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR, acknowledging that he had lied on his application regarding his criminal record. He had a history of various offenses, including a misdemeanor conviction for aggravated assault in 2021 and multiple drug-related charges dating back to 2007. While he expressed remorse and indicated he had stopped using drugs and alcohol, the administrative judge found that the applicant's extensive criminal history and lack of sufficient time elapsed since his last offense raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the evidence presented did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns raised by his personal conduct and criminal history. The judge emphasized that the applicant's pattern of criminal behavior and the willful falsifications in his application created doubts about his trustworthiness and ability to safeguard classified information, ultimately leading to a denial of his security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 24-02441

deniedJan 7, 2026· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant admitted to willfully falsifying information on his security clearance application, specifically regarding his police record and past charges.

The denial was also based on a history of criminal conduct. This included a guilty plea to a misdemeanor for Facilitation to Commit Aggravated Assault. Additionally, the applicant faced charges for Possession of Marijuana in 2017, two DUIs in 2011 and 2012, and Criminal Damage stemming from a domestic dispute in 2012. Multiple drug-related offenses from 2007 to 2009 were also noted.

The administrative judge determined that the admitted falsifications and the pattern of criminal conduct raised significant security concerns, leading to an unfavorable decision regarding the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to willful falsifications on his security clearance application.
The applicant has a history of multiple criminal offenses, including drug charges and a misdemeanor assault.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 31(a)raisedPattern of Minor Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 2, 2025
Answer filed—undated answer submitted
Hearing heldNov 17, 2025
Decision dateJan 7, 2026

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Security Concerns Related to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Impact of Falsifications 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 against the applicant on the personal conduct allegation of lying on his security clearance application regarding his police record and past charges. The applicant admitted to lying on the application, which the judge deemed a willful falsification, leading to concerns about the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant lied on his security clearance application regarding his police record and past charges.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—

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 against the applicant on all allegations related to criminal conduct under Guideline J. The applicant's history of criminal charges, including a guilty plea for aggravated assault and multiple DUI charges, raised significant security concerns that were not mitigated.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant pled guilty to a misdemeanor for Facilitation to Commit Aggravated Assault.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.b	Applicant was charged with Possession of Marijuana in 2017.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Charged Not Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.c	Applicant was charged with two DUIs in 2011 and 2012.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Charged Not Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.d	Applicant was charged with Criminal Damage due to a domestic dispute in 2012.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Charged Not Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.e	Applicant was charged with multiple drug-related offenses from 2007 to 2009.	Against Applicant	Multiple Arrests Pattern	Charged Not Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

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.