CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00116 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-00116denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00116

Mar 27, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to concerns about falsifying timesheets and security clearance applications. The appeal board upheld the denial, finding no harmful error in the judge's initial decision.

The board determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his conduct occurred under unique circumstances. Furthermore, his appeal did not assert any specific harmful error made by the judge during the initial review.

The applicant's claims of personal change since the incidents did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns raised by his past conduct. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2raisedFalsification of Information
E2.A5.1.3raisedDeliberate Omission of Information
E2.A5.1.4raisedFailure to Cooperate with Investigations

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 15, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 2, 2023after the record closed
Decision dateMar 27, 2023

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not specifically assert that the Judge committed any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record. The Applicant failed to establish any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Gregg A. Cervi

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. 21-00116

)

) 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

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 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