ISCR Case No. 24-00032

_______________________________________ ) 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

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).

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