Skip to content
← The Issue Encyclopedia

Issue Encyclopedia · Guideline J · Criminal Conduct

Weapons Offense

What the decided record shows for this issue, computed from public DOHA hearing-level decisions. Descriptive history, not a prediction.

Does weapons offense affect a security clearance?

Weapons Offense is an issue decided under Guideline J, Criminal Conduct. In the decided DOHA record it appears in 101 hearing-level cases, and 24% of the 101 decided ended with access granted (24 granted, 77 denied). The mitigating conditions judges credited most often, and example decisions either way, are below.

Basis: 101 decided hearing-level cases raising this issue. Descriptive history of decided cases, not a prediction.

More questions people ask the record

Decided cases

101

hearing-level decisions raising this issue

Granted

24%

24 granted · 77 denied or revoked

Official mitigating conditions cited

The formal mitigating conditions the case profiles identified on this issue, in cases that were granted and in cases that were denied. Each is shown with its paragraph number and a plain name. Read what each condition says.
  • ¶ 32(a) · So much time has passed, or the circumstances were so unusual

    In granted cases
    13
    In denied cases
    2
  • ¶ 32(d) · Successful rehabilitation shown

    In granted cases
    9
    In denied cases
    1
  • ¶ 32(c) · No reliable evidence that the person committed the offense

    In granted cases
    3
    In denied cases
    3

Circumstances credited in granted cases

The specific circumstances the judge expressly credited among the granted cases on this issue where that detail was extracted.
  • acknowledgment and remorse · credited in 3 granted cases
  • no subsequent offenses · credited in 2 granted cases
  • community involvement · credited in 1 granted case
  • explanation of omission credible · credited in 1 granted case
  • rehabilitation evidence · credited in 1 granted case

Recent decided examples

  • Applicant, a defense contractor quality assurance program manager and Navy veteran, faced allegations under Guidelines J, E, and H involving decades of criminal conduct, traffic offenses, workplace di…

  • Applicant, a 29-year-old security guard employed by a defense contractor, sought a security clearance after submitting his application in May 2022. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reas…

  • The applicant, a 70-year-old engineer, was denied security clearance due to unresolved security concerns under Guidelines E and J. He admitted to being terminated for bringing a handgun to work in Dec…

  • Applicant, a defense contractor employee, was denied eligibility for a security clearance after the judge found against him on Guideline J and Guideline E. The record showed juvenile attempted murder,…

See all 101 decisions on this issue

Related issues under Guideline J

How these numbers are measured

Scope: decided hearing-level cases whose per-allegation profile records this issue, matched to the same issue value the search filters use, so a count here and a filtered search always agree. A case raising several issues counts under each one. The mitigating conditions and the credited circumstances below were extracted for a subset of the record, so both are counts of cases rather than rates. Pages exist only for issues with at least 25 decided cases, and † marks any split built on fewer than 20.

Reading the statistics

  • Granted = access granted or continued; Denied = denied or revoked.
  • Grant rate = granted ÷ (granted + denied).
  • † marks figures based on fewer than 20 cases, too few to be reliable.
  • Hovering any rate shows its statistical range (a 95% confidence interval).
  • Figures are descriptive counts over decided, public DOHA ISCR decisions, never predictions or assessments of any pending case.

Where to go from here

Get help with my case

Send us your question, or the Statement of Reasons you received. No charge, and a CASE analyst reads it. Usually five to ten business days.

Ask a question →

I do this for clients

Rank every decision by how closely it matches a matter, see how the assigned judge has ruled, and keep it together with cited exports.

For attorneys and firms →

Decided public cases: descriptive, never a prediction.