Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00942denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-00942

deniedApr 4, 2024· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 32-year-old principal systems engineer, faced security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline J (criminal conduct) due to multiple incidents of domestic violence against his spouse. Despite demonstrating some mitigating factors, including completion of a domestic violence program and compliance with probation, the judge found that the applicant's criminal conduct raised significant doubts about his judgment and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

Why the applicant was denied

The applicant has a pattern of domestic violence incidents, including arrests and convictions.
The most recent incident involved choking his spouse, which raised serious concerns about his judgment and reliability.
Mitigating conditions were not fully established due to the applicant being on probation and the recency of the last incident.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(a)appliedPattern of Minor Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(c)appliedCurrently on Parole or Probation

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationWhile the applicant completed a domestic violence program, the judge found that not enough time had elapsed since the last incident to establish rehabilitation.

Key rule quoted

“"Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security."”
Directive, Enclosure 2, [App. A] ¶ 2(b)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedJul 19, 2023
Answer filed—Undated response to SOR provided.
Hearing heldDec 15, 2023
Decision dateApr 4, 2024

Cite for

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Domestic Violence Incidents
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Mitigating Conditions Not Established Due to Ongoing Probation

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

From the decision

Facts this decision states, each with the exact sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.

Age at decision: 32: “Applicant is a 32-year-old principal systems engineer who has been employed by a large defense contractor since2016.”

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant's personal conduct concerns were mitigated, but ultimately denied the application for security clearance due to unresolved criminal conduct issues. The applicant admitted to writing papers for his spouse while she was in college, which raised ethical concerns under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant's criminal conduct raised significant security concerns under Guideline J, specifically related to multiple incidents of domestic violence. The applicant's history of arrests and charges, including aggravated domestic battery and domestic battery with bodily harm, led to a denial of his security clearance application.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

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

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

For Applicant Conclusion In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Mark Harvey Administrative Judge 11