Skip to main content

Issue Encyclopedia · Guideline E · Personal Conduct

Misuse of Employer Time or Resources

What the decided record shows for this issue, computed from public DOHA hearing-level decisions. Descriptive history, never a prediction.

Decided cases
66
verified hearing-level decisions
Granted
14%
9 granted · 57 denied or revoked

Official mitigating conditions in play

The formal mitigating conditions (by official paragraph) that case profiles identified on this issue, in cases that were granted vs denied. Extracted for a subset of cases; counts are cases, not percentages of everything. Read what each condition says.

ConditionIn granted casesIn denied cases
¶ 17(c)41

What judges credited in granted cases

Specific circumstances the judge expressly credited, among the granted cases on this issue where that detail was extracted (a subset of the record, so these are raw counts, not rates).

  • acknowledgment and remorse · credited in 2 granted cases

Recent decided examples

  • ISCR 21-01308 granted · 2024
    The applicant in this case was a 55-year-old senior director for business development at a defense contractor, with a military background as a retired Colonel. The Defense Counterintelligence and Secu
  • ISCR 15-08381.h1 granted · 2018
    The judge found in favor of the applicant regarding personal conduct concerns under Guideline E. The applicant's responses on the e-QIP were deemed false, but the judge credited the applicant's explan
  • ISCR 06-25957 denied · 2008
    The applicant in this case was a 44-year-old electrical engineer employed by a government contractor, who had a history of financial difficulties primarily attributed to a gambling problem. The Defens
  • ISCR 07-00042 denied · 2007
    The applicant in this case was a 51-year-old engineer and subject matter security officer employed by a major defense contractor. The adjudicative guidelines at issue included Personal Conduct and Fin

See all 66 decisions on this issue →

Wondering how this issue plays against your own facts? Ask the assistant, or get a written, human-reviewed response through Answers. Descriptive research only: not legal advice or a prediction.