Loading case…

ISCR 24-00032: Guideline E security clearance appeal, denied (2025) · CASE

ISCR Case 24-00032denied

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, particularly regarding an allegation of timecard fraud, but the Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the 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 establish any harmful error. The Judge's conclusions regarding the timecard fraud were well-grounded and articulated satisfactorily.

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

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

ISCR Case No. 24-00032

)

) 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: September 12, 2025

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On July 16, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On July 30, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge John Bayard Glendon denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied the allegations, provided information in support of his denials, attached four documents, and requested a decision based on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On October 30, 2024, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and provided a copy to Applicant. In his undated response to the FORM, Applicant attached a copy of his Answer to the SOR and the same four exhibits previously submitted. Applicant also indicated support from one of his elected representatives in

Congress and ultimately one of those offices forwarded correspondence on his behalf. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on the three Guideline F allegations because of the age and small number of debts alleged. The Judge found adversely on the sole allegation under Guideline E, which alleged that Applicant was terminated from his employment with a defense contractor in 2022 for time and attendance fraud over a two-year period. On appeal, Applicant primarily resubmits the information and explanations that he provided in his response to the SOR and FORM. He highlights his military service and his work as a defense contractor since leaving active duty. Regarding the allegation of time fraud, Applicant reiterates his earlier denial, claiming that he was wrongly terminated after new technology eliminated the need for his position and that the employer was using the allegation of timecard fraud as an “excuse.” Appeal Brief at 2. Applicant asserts that the only evidence that he was shown to support the allegation of time fraud was “hearsay from an unknown ‘witness’” and that the Judge “made the unfavorable ruling from this insufficient evidence.” Id. Applicant’s assertions are contradicted by the record, which includes a two-page report by the employer to the DoD Inspector General detailing its investigation into Applicant’s timesheets. Government Exhibit 8. The employer’s investigation included a review of the facility’s badging records and Applicant’s timecards, interviews with two witnesses, and an interview with Applicant, and it revealed significant discrepancies between Applicant’s timesheets and his presence in the facility, totaling about 770 hours. The employer noted that Applicant “did not provide a credible explanation” for those discrepancies. Id. As a result of its investigation, the employer refunded the government customer for the 770 hours charged. The Judge concluded that “[Applicant’s] employer established the reliability of its claims by reporting them to the DoD Inspector General and repaying the Government for the monies Applicant was paid but failed to work.” Decision at 8–9. The Judge’s deference to the employer’s internal investigation is well- grounded in the precedent to which he cites, and his conclusion that Applicant failed to mitigate the security concern raised by his timecard fraud is amply supported by the record. Applicant has failed to establish any harmful error below. The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “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). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security. AG ¶ 2(b).

ORDER

The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-00032 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board