Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 26-00085 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date6/12/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Erin P. Thompson
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Guidelines Evaluated
- JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR ISCR Case No. 26-00085, answered from its own record: what was alleged, what the judge found, where it says so. Descriptive only; never advice.

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only, not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 26-00085denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 26-00085

deniedJun 12, 2026· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 36-year-old customer service representative, faced security concerns under Guideline J due to multiple criminal charges, including aggravated assault and simple assault. Despite some charges being withdrawn, she was convicted of possessing an instrument of crime and simple assault, resulting in probation. The judge found that the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation or responsibility for her actions, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant was convicted of possessing an instrument of crime and simple assault, which raised concerns about her judgment and reliability.
The applicant did not provide evidence of rehabilitation or compliance with probation terms.
The applicant failed to accept responsibility for her criminal conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)appliedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(c)appliedCurrently on Parole or Probation

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)rejectedTime Elapsed Since Criminal BehaviorThe incident with the neighbor was recent and did not occur under unusual circumstances.
AG ¶ 32(c)rejectedNo Reliable Evidence of OffenseThe testimony of the neighbor was sufficient to support the conviction.
AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant did not provide evidence of job performance or community involvement.

Key Rule Quoted

“Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 27, 2026
Answer filedMar 6, 2026
Hearing heldMay 20, 2026conducted by video teleconference
Decision dateJun 12, 2026

Cite For

Evaluation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Consideration of Rehabilitation in Security Clearance Decisions
Impact of Recent Criminal Convictions 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 J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had a criminal conduct issue under Guideline J, resulting in a denial of security clearance. The judge ruled against the applicant for one allegation and in favor for another, citing evidence of criminal conduct and the applicant's conviction as disqualifying factors.

1.a On July 19, 2025, Applicant was arrested and charged with aggravated assault by attempting to cause serious bodily injury or causing injury with extreme indifference; aggravated assault by attempting to cause or causing bodily injury with a deadly weapon; possession of an instrument of crime; simple assault; recklessly endangering another person; and harassment by subjecting another to physical contact. This arrest is alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a.
Finding: For Applicant
Offense: Unspecified Criminal Conduct
Criminal disposition: Conduct No Charge
Response: Denied
Disqualifying (¶31): —
Mitigating applied (¶32): —
Mitigation: —
1.b On November 26, 2025, Applicant’s neighbor who had observed the altercation on November 6, called the police and accused Applicant of attacking him. Applicant was arrested and charged with criminal attempt to commit burglary, possession of an instrument of crime, and simple assault. This arrest is alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b.
Finding: Against Applicant
Offense: Assault or Battery
Criminal disposition: Convicted
Response: Denied
Disqualifying (¶31):
(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction
(c) currently on parole or probation
Mitigating applied (¶32): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	On July 19, 2025, Applicant was arrested and charged with aggravated assault by attempting to cause serious bodily injury or causing injury with extreme indifference; aggravated assault by attempting to cause or causing bodily injury with a deadly weapon; possession of an instrument of crime; simple assault; recklessly endangering another person; and harassment by subjecting another to physical contact. This arrest is alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	On November 26, 2025, Applicant’s neighbor who had observed the altercation on November 6, called the police and accused Applicant of attacking him. Applicant was arrested and charged with criminal attempt to commit burglary, possession of an instrument of crime, and simple assault. This arrest is alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Convicted	Denied	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application

DECISION

(SCA) on January 31, 2025. On February 27, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and S

STATEMENT OF CASE

curity Agency (DCSA) sent her a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline J. The DCSA acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), which became effective on June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR on March 6, 2026, denied all the allegations, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on March 27, 2026, and the case was assigned to me on April 21, 2026. On April 1

FINDINGS OF FACT

27, 2026, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified Applicant that the hearing was scheduled to be conducted by video teleconference on May 20, 2026. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Government Exhibits (GX) 1 through 7 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified but did not present the testimony of any other witnesses or submit any documentary evidence. I kept the record open until June 5, 2026, to enable her to present additional evidence. She did not submit any additional evidence. DOHA received the hearing transcript on June 4, 2026. The record closed on June 5, 2026. Findings of Fact Applicant is a 36-year-old customer service representative for a federal contractor. She was in a supervisory position until she received the SOR. She has worked for her current employer since September 2022. She is a high-school graduate, and she earned a nursing certificate while in high school. She attended a community college from September to December 2013 but did not receive a degree. (Tr. 14) She married in February 2019, is separated, and is pending divorce. She has no children. She has never held a security clearance. On July 19, 2025, Applicant was arrested and charged with aggravated assault by attempting to cause serious bodily injury or causing injury with extreme indifference; aggravated assault by attempting to case or causing bodily injury with a deadly weapon; possession of an instrument of crime; simple assault; recklessly endangering another person; and harassment by subjecting another to physical contact. This arrest is alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. According to the police report (GX 4), Applicant had taken a commuter train on that day from her home, intending to go to a nail salon. When she exited the commuter train and began walking, she was approached by a man who struck her in the face twice. She began running away and noticed a group of men chasing her and then surrounding her. She had a kitchen knife in her purse, which she carried because she comes home from work after dark and lives in a “scary area.” (Tr. 17-18) As the men surrounded her, she removed the kitchen knife from her purse, began swinging it around, and apparently struck one of the men. She told the police that she blacked out at that point for a short time. A police officer told her to drop the knife, and she complied. She was arrested, handcuffed, taken to the police station, and charged with the offenses alleged in the SOR. She was jailed and could not make bail, set at $75,000. She remained in custody because she refused to take a test for tuberculosis. After five days, she had a bail hearing, bail was set at zero, and she was released. Her trial was set for December 1, 2025, and she was represented by a public defender. She was never tried, because all the charges were withdrawn. (GX 9) On November 6, 2025, Applicant’s h

POLICIES

sband, from whom she is separated and seeking a divorce, visited her apartment. They had an “altercation,” during which he 2

kicked a hole in the door of her apartment. The altercation and the argument continued in the hallway outside Applicant’s apartment. When he refused to leave, Applicant called the police, who arrived and removed him. (Tr. 30-31) Applicant’s neighbor observed the altercation in the hallway and the hole in her entry door. (Tr. 37) On November 26, 2025, Applicant’s neighbor who had observed the altercation on November 6, called the police and accused Applicant of attacking him. Applicant was arrested and charged with criminal attempt to commit burglary, possession of an instrument of crime, and simple assault. (GX 3) This arrest is alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b. She was kept in jail for a week and then released. The neighbor told the police that Applicant chased him with a knife and screamed racial slurs that he could not understand due to a language barrier. He claimed that he retreated into his apartment safely, but Applicant began pulling on the door and banging on it, attempting to gain entry. There were no injuries, and the police could not find a knife. (GX 3) Applicant was tried by a judge for this incident on May 14, 2026. At the trial, her alleged victim testified through an interpreter because he does not speak English. He claimed that Applicant “charged at him in a jabbing motion about 12 meters away from him” and tried to enter his apartment. (Tr. 29-40) She was found not guilty of attempted burglary and aggravated assault, but convicted of possessing an instrument of crime, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another, and she was sentenced to probation for three years. (GX 9) The terms of probation include supervision by a mental health unit and mental health treatment. (GX 8 at 4) The sparse record in this case does not reflect whether the requirement for mental supervision and treatment was based on Applicant’s criminal conduct or her reaction to being tried and sentenced. Applicant testified that sh

ANALYSIS

suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and depression after this incident, and that she was still in therapy at the time of the hearing. (Tr. 43) She has not appealed her conviction. At the hearing, Applicant testified that she lives in a “very bad building,” and it is not uncommon for the police to be called to the apartment building. (Tr. 34) She testified that she believed her neighbor used this incident as a means of breaking his lease and obtaining another apartment in a safer location. (Tr. 31) Policies “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to “control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2. Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules 3

of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safe

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

uard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan at 531. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” See ISCR Case No. 17-04166 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 21, 2019). It is “less than t

FORMAL FINDINGS

e weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [a Judge’s] finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). Th

CONCLUSION

guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). Once the Government establish