INDUSTRIAL SECURITY CLEARANCE CASES
These include the investigation or adjudication of the security clearances of officers and employees of contractors doing business with the Department of Defense. The process begins with a Statement of Reasons (SOR) for the denial of the security clearance. The SOR will set out specific bases, guided by DoD Directive 5220.6, for the proposed denial. The applicant must respond to the SOR within 20 days by either admitting or denying the allegations. As part of the answer to the SOR the applicant must either request a review of the File of Relevant Material (FORM) or request a hearing (see above discussion on importance of requesting a hearing). The case will then be set for a hearing before an Administrative Judge. These hearings are typically held on the military facility at which the applicant works or at a local courthouse. The hearings are a relatively formal proceeding at which documents are admitted and witnesses are called by both the government representative (acting as a prosecutor) and the applicant or applicant’s counsel. A transcript of the hearing is prepared and the Administrative Judge will make a decision based upon the formal record of the case.
REPRESENTATIVE CASES
THE LISTING OF SPECIFIC OR CUMULATIVE CASE RESULTS IN THIS WEBPAGE IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR REVIEW. YOU NEED TO BE AWARE THAT ACTUAL CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. THE CASE RESULTS PROVIDED DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY CASE UNDERTAKEN BY THIS LAW FIRM.
Legal Disclaimer
The Law Firm of Greg D McCormack, PC, trading as McCormack and McCormack, is registered as a Professional Corporation in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The information
provided in the web site is offered for informational purposes only. It is not offered as and does not constitute legal advice. The Law
Firm of McCormack and McCormack does not seek to represent you based upon your visit or review of this web site alone. The web site may
be considered advertising under the rules of the Commonwealth of Virginia. You should not make legal hiring decisions based upon
brochures, advertising, or other promotional materials. Click HERE to read our Privacy Statement and Legal Disclaimer.
DoD CONTRACTOR GUIDELINE F DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline F (Financial Considerations), an allegation of an unpaid and charged-off home mortgage indebtedness. The Law Office of McCormack & McCormack represented the employee at an administrative hearing. Result: Successfully presented sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, and mitigate the security concerns. Applicant met the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision. Case decided for Applicant by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - CLEARANCE GRANTED.
DoD CONTRACTOR GUIDELINE H DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline H (Drug Involvement), two allegations of using illegal drugs. The Law Office of Greg D. McCormack represented employee at an administrative hearing. Result: successfully presented sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, and mitigate the security concerns; Applicant met the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision. Case decided for Applicant by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - CLEARANCE GRANTED.
GUIDELINE H & E DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on August 19, 2006. On May 8, 2009 the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its preliminary decision to deny his application, citing security concerns under Guidelines H (Drug Involvement) and E (Personal Conduct).
The Applicant received the SOR on May 18, 2009 and after retaining the Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack submitted his written response to the SOR and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. After review of the Applicant's response to the SOR, the concerns under guideline E were mitigated. At the hearing the administrative judge reviewed the Applicant's past drug use, his successful completion of treatment, his current employment records and performance evaluations, current living situation, current social activities and his letters of good character and determined that in light of all the circumstances it was clearly consistent with the national interest to continue the Applicant's eligibility for security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
GUIDELINE J DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Air Force contractor employee issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke eligibility for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) due to three allegations of Criminal Conduct (Guideline J); one allegation under Handling Protected Information Guideline K); two allegations (failure to disclosure information) under Personal Conduct (Guideline E); the employee with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns – access granted by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).
GUIDELINE B DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline B (Foreign Influence), three allegations of foreign contacts and interests which may have caused manipulation or inducement to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government, in a way that was not in the U.S. interests, or was vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest; and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), twenty-two allegations of failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations. The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack represented employee at an administrative hearing. Result: successfully presented sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, and mitigate the security concerns; Applicant met the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision. Case decided for Applicant by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - CLEARANCE GRANTED.
GUIDELINE F DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline F (Financial Considerations), allegations of failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations, by being indebted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Law Firm of McCormack and McCormack represented employee at the administrative hearing and was able to show all debts had been satisfied and that client had been working with debt management company to pay all debts. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - For Applicant - by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - CLEARANCE GRANTED.
GUIDELINE B DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline B (Foreign Influence), six allegations of foreign contacts and interests which may have caused manipulation or inducement to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government, in a way that was not in the U.S. interests, or was vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest. The Law Firm of McCormack and McCormack represented employee at an administrative hearing. Result: successfully presented sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, and mitigate the security concerns; Applicant met the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision. Case decided for Applicant by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - clearance granted.
GUIDELINE F, H and E DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline F (Financial Considerations), allegations of failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations, by being indebted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); Guideline H (Drug Involvement), allegations of use of an illegal drug, by the use and purchase of marijuana, and court conviction for possession of marijuana; and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), allegations of conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, as a result of the allegations cited under Guideline H and Guideline F, above. The Law Firm of McCormack and McCormack represented employee at the administrative hearing. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - For Applicant - by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - CLEARANCE GRANTED..
GUIDELINE E DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline E (Personal Conduct), allegation of being sued in U.S. District Court by former employer for breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Law Firm of McCormack and McCormack represented employee at the administrative hearing. Result: successfully presented sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, and mitigate the security concerns; Applicant met the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision. Case decided for Applicant by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - CLEARANCE GRANTED.
GUIDELINE B DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline B (Foreign Influence), allegations of spouse and stepchild are citizens of Sudan; mother and father are citizens and residents of Sudan; brothers and sisters are citizens and residents of Sudan; and allegations of travel to Sudan. The Law Firm of McCormack and McCormack represented employee at the administrative hearing. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - For Applicant - by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - CLEARANCE GRANTED.
GUIDELINE H DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Department of Defense contractor employee previously denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), 16 allegations of past purchase and use of illegal drugs over a 7-year period. The Law Firm of McCormack and McCormack retained to assist with employee's reapplication/reconsideration. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - CLEARANCE GRANTED by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals (DOHA).
THE LISTING OF SPECIFIC OR CUMULATIVE CASE RESULTS IN THIS WEBPAGE IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR REVIEW. YOU NEED TO BE AWARE THAT ACTUAL CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. THE CASE RESULTS PROVIDED DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY CASE UNDERTAKEN BY THIS LAW FIRM.