Issue Encyclopedia · Guideline M · IT Systems
Pornography / Inappropriate Content on an Employer System
What the decided record shows for this issue, computed from public DOHA hearing-level decisions. Descriptive history, never a prediction.
Decided cases
61
verified hearing-level decisions
Granted
23%
14 granted · 47 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.
| Condition | In granted cases | In denied cases |
|---|---|---|
| ¶ 41(a) | 8 | 3 |
Recent decided examples
- ISCR 18-00557 granted · 2020The applicant in this case was a 45-year-old information technology support specialist who sought a security clearance to work in the defense industry. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Stateme…
- ISCR 19-02492 granted · 2022Applicant in this case was a 51-year-old U.S. citizen who had worked overseas for various Department of Defense (DOD) contractors and held a security clearance since 1991. The Department of Defense is…
- ISCR 16-03472 denied · 2018The applicant in this case was a 50-year-old senior engineer who sought a security clearance after being employed by various defense contractors. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reason…
- ISCR 17-02144 denied · 2019The applicant in this case was a 50-year-old information technology professional who had held a security clearance since 2006. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing secu…
Related issues under Guideline M
- Unauthorized Use of an IT System · 99 cases
- Unspecified IT Misuse · 92 cases
- Unauthorized Access / Entry into an IT System · 44 cases
- Unauthorized Modification, Destruction, or Denial of Access · 40 cases
- Unauthorized Hardware, Software, or Media · 34 cases
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.