CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02479 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02479

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: LeRoy F. Foreman
Government Counsel: Tovah A. Minster
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 49-year-old associate analyst employed by a defense contractor since August 2021. The Department of Defense's Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) addressed security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and J (Criminal Conduct) in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued on March 4, 2025. The core allegations included the applicant's failure to disclose a termination from a previous job and providing false information regarding his employment history, as well as admitting to criminal conduct involving assaults on his wife.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the criminal conduct allegations but denied falsifying information in his security clearance application and during a security interview. He explained that his termination was not due to unsatisfactory performance but rather a misunderstanding of job expectations. The applicant also asserted that the incidents leading to the civil protection order against him were minor and related to an ongoing divorce and custody dispute.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's security clearance, citing concerns about his lack of candor and the implications of his criminal conduct on his reliability and trustworthiness. The judge emphasized that the applicant's admissions and the circumstances surrounding his termination raised significant questions about his judgment and ability to protect classified information, ultimately concluding that granting a clearance was not consistent with the national interest.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · For 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. 24-02479

deniedJan 7, 2026· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 49-year-old associate analyst was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant admitted to criminal conduct involving assaults on his wife, which occurred in February 2022 and April 2023, and were acknowledged by a court granting a protection order. While the judge found that the applicant mitigated the concerns related to his criminal conduct, issues under personal conduct remained.

The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant falsified his security clearance application in January 2024 by failing to disclose his termination from a defense contractor and providing a false reason for leaving that job. Additionally, he was accused of falsifying material facts during a security interview in September 2024 by denying he had been fired from employment within the last seven years, despite being aware of his termination.

The judge determined that the applicant's failure to disclose unfavorable employment termination circumstances demonstrated a lack of candor. The applicant's explanations for these omissions were found to be intentional, thereby undermining the integrity of the security clearance process. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to disclose unfavorable employment termination circumstances in his security clearance application, demonstrating a lack of candor.
The judge found that the applicant's attempts to explain his omissions were intentional and undermined the integrity of the security clearance process.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal Behavior Happened
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 4, 2025
Answer filedMar 18, 2025
Hearing heldDec 5, 2025hearing rescheduled due to federal government shutdown
Decision dateJan 7, 2026

Cite For

Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Importance of Full Disclosure in Security Clearance Processes

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 allegations of falsification related to his security clearance application and interview. The applicant admitted to one allegation but denied the others, which were found to be against him, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant falsified his SCA in January 2024 by deliberately failing to disclose his termination of employment by a defense contractor and giving a false reason for leaving his job.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.b	Applicant falsified material facts during a security interview in September 2024 by answering 'No' to the investigator's question whether he had been fired from employment during the last seven years.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.c	Applicant was aware of his termination from employment during the same interview and that he intentionally omitted mentioning it.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	Employment History	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 that the applicant admitted to committing assaults, which were substantiated by a court's protection order. Despite the admission, the overall security clearance was denied due to concerns regarding the applicant's conduct. The judge ruled against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations, indicating that the applicant's actions were not consistent with national security interests.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant admitted the facts alleged, including the fact that the court granting the protection order found that he committed assaults in February 2022 and April 2023.	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—

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.