CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 21-00814 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 21-00814denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 21-00814

Feb 1, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) for an applicant who represented himself. The denial stemmed primarily from an attempted timecard falsification in 2020, which resulted in his termination from a previous job. This incident raised significant security concerns regarding the applicant's reliability and judgment.

Further compounding these concerns was the Administrative Judge's finding that the applicant demonstrated a lack of candor when addressing the timecard falsification incident with relevant authorities. This failure to be forthright was a key factor in the decision to deny the clearance.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal did not identify any specific errors in the Administrative Judge's initial ruling. Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2raisedPersonal ConductThe applicant's attempted timecard falsification and lack of candor were central to the security concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 16, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 30, 2021Decision issued by Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley.
Decision dateFeb 1, 2022Appeal affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Importance of Candor in Security Clearance Evaluations
Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Standards for Appealing Security Clearance Decisions

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E related to the applicant's attempted timecard falsification. The applicant argued that the judge made a mistake but did not specify any errors. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed the administrative judge made a mistake in the decision without identifying specific errors.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision, which was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Moira D. Modzelewski

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

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

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

------------------------- )

ISCR Case No. 21-00814

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: February 1, 2022

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On July 16, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On November 30, 2021, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant was fired from a job in 2020 for attempting to falsify his timecard and is ineligible for rehire. In his analysis, the Judge stated: While Applicant’s falsification of his shift time might by itself be considered an isolated event, his failure to fully own up to his mistake in candor and judgment with his supervisor, human resources representative, investigating OPM

investigator, and in his SOR response only compounds his lapse in candor and judgment reflected in his falsifying his shift time . . . . [Decision at 6.] The Judge concluded that Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from the attempted timecard falsification. In his appeal brief, Applicant states “the administrative judge has made a mistake in the decision[,]” but he fails to identify any specific error the Judge purportedly committed. Appeal Brief at 1. Applicant also states “I made a foolish mistake and I have learned my lesson.” Id. None of his arguments are sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02592 at 5 (App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2021). Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on the record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also, Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of national security.”

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira D. Modzelewski Moira D. Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board