CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00032 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00032

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date9/12/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00032) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had financial issues but primarily focused on an allegation of time and attendance fraud that led to his termination from a defense contractor in 2022.
During the proceedings, the applicant denied the allegations of fraud, asserting that he was wrongfully terminated due to technological changes that rendered his position obsolete. He claimed that the evidence against him was based on hearsay and insufficient. However, the administrative judge found that the employer's investigation, which included a detailed report to the DoD Inspector General and corroborating witness statements, revealed significant discrepancies in the applicant's timesheets, totaling approximately 770 hours. The judge concluded that the applicant did not provide a credible explanation for these discrepancies and upheld the employer's findings.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant on the Guideline E allegation, affirming that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by the fraud allegation. The appeal board found no harmful error in the judge's decision, stating that the evidence supported the conclusion that granting the clearance would not be consistent with national security interests. The decision was affirmed.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-00032

Sep 12, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance primarily under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from allegations of timecard fraud, which an employer's investigation substantiated.

The judge determined that the applicant had committed timecard fraud and failed to offer a credible explanation for discrepancies in his timesheets. While the judge initially found in the applicant's favor regarding the financial considerations under Guideline F, the adverse finding concerning personal conduct under Guideline E was upheld on appeal.

The appeal emphasized the critical importance of national security in clearance decisions. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied due to the substantiated personal conduct issues related to timecard fraud.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant was terminated for time and attendance fraud.
AG ¶ 19appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's financial issues were not deemed significant enough to mitigate the concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 16, 2024
Answer filedJul 30, 2024Applicant denied allegations and requested a decision based on the written record.
Hearing heldJul 30, 2025Decision made by Administrative Judge John Bayard Glendon.
Decision dateSep 12, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Upholding Adverse Findings Under Guideline E Due to Substantiated Allegations of Personal Conduct
Importance of Employer Investigations in Clearance Decisions
Standard for Granting Clearance Based on National Security Interests

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 security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant contested the ruling, arguing insufficient evidence for the adverse finding related to timecard fraud. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Bayard Glendon — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged that the Judge made an unfavorable ruling based on insufficient evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's findings or conclusions.

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

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
Jennifer I. Goldstein

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.