A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-00814
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 1, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security concerns under Guideline E due to an attempted timecard falsification that led to his termination from a job in 2020. The Administrative Judge found that the applicant's lack of candor regarding the incident compounded the security concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance. The appeal did not identify specific errors in the judge's decision, resulting in the affirmation of the denial.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's attempted timecard falsification raised significant security concerns under Guideline E.
- The applicant failed to demonstrate candor and judgment in addressing the incident with relevant authorities.
- The appeal did not identify any specific errors in the judge's decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- E2 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-07-16
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2021-11-30 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley.
- Decision date
- 2022-02-01 Appeal 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
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.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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