A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-00116
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 27, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to allegations of falsifying timesheets and security clearance applications. The appeal board affirmed the denial of his security clearance, finding no harmful error in the judge's decision and that the applicant did not demonstrate unique circumstances regarding his conduct.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to demonstrate that his conduct occurred under unique circumstances.
- The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge.
- The applicant's claims of having changed since the incidents did not mitigate the concerns.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- E2.A5.1.2 Falsification of informationraised
- E2.A5.1.3 Deliberate omission of informationraised
- E2.A5.1.4 Failure to cooperate with investigationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-07-15
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2023-02-02 after the record closed
- Decision date
- 2023-03-27
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Falsification of Information Under Guideline E
- Importance of Demonstrating Unique Circumstances in Personal Conduct Cases
- Standard for Granting Clearance as Consistent with National Security
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 an Applicant who was denied a security clearance based on allegations of falsifying timesheets and security clearance applications. The Applicant appealed the decision but did not assert any specific harmful errors. The Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.
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. 21-00116
)
) 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: March 27, 2023
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 15, 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 DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On February 2, 2023, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge found against Applicant on three SOR allegations. These alleged that Applicant falsified timesheets on at least four occasions in 2019 and resigned from that job upon being advised he was under investigation for that matter, that he falsified a 2019 security clearance application (SCA) by failing to disclose information about his job resignation a month earlier, and that he falsified a 2020 SCA by failing to disclose information about his job termination earlier that year for falsification of time records. The Judge concluded that Applicant failed to show that
his alleged conduct happened under unique circumstances, was unlikely to recur, and did not cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgement. Applicant’s appeal brief does not specifically assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. It does contain assertions that constitute new evidence, which the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In the brief, Applicant admits that he made mistakes nearly four years ago and states that he has been on a straight path since then. He also highlights character letters that he submitted to the Judge. To the extent that he is contending the Judge mis- weighed the evidence, he has failed to establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. 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 the 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: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board