CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01821.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-01821.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01821.a1

Apr 20, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to falsifying a resume to obtain employment. The applicant admitted to purchasing and using a falsified resume for job applications, which subsequently led to his termination from Company B. This conduct was deemed a serious breach of trust.

The appeal board upheld the denial, citing substantial evidence of misconduct and national security concerns. The board found that the judge's decision was based on reasonable inferences drawn from the record.

The applicant failed to identify specific errors in the judge's decision that would have altered the outcome. Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedJun 15, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldJan 31, 2018Decision made by Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley.
Decision dateApr 20, 2018Appeal board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Substantial Evidence of Falsifying Employment Credentials Under Guideline E
Importance of National Security in Clearance Decisions
Applicant's Admissions as Critical to the Outcome of the Case

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 due to concerns under Guideline E related to personal conduct. The applicant admitted to using a falsified resume to obtain employment. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful errors in the judge's findings or conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that he did not provide Company B with the same resume that he used to obtain employment with Company A.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends some dates and job titles are not accurate.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge’s material findings regarding Applicant’s use of the falsified resume to obtain employment with Company B are based on substantial evidence. The decision is sustainable on this record, and the applicant did not cite any error likely to affect the outcome of the case.

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

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant contends that he did not provide Company B with the same resume that he used to obtain employment with Company A. As noted above, Applicant admitted in his SOR response that he used the falsified resume he had purchased from a third party to apply for and obtain employment with Company B. The Judge’s material findings regarding Applicant’s use of the falsified resume to obtain employment with Company B are based on substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-01821.a1 DATE: 04/20/2018 DATE: April 20, 2018 In Re: --------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-01821

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 June 15, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On January 31, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant paid a third party $1,000 in 2014 to falsify a resume for him that contained erroneous certifications; that he paid that third party $1,000 in 2014 to act as him during the hiring process with Company A, which hired him; and that he used the false resume in 2014 to obtain employment with Company B, which, upon learning of the false resume and lack of certifications, fired him in 2015. In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted each of the SOR allegations without providing any explanations for his conduct. In August 2017, he received Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and was given 30 days to file objections and submit additional information. He did not submit a response to the FORM. In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that he did not provide Company B with the same resume that he used to obtain employment with Company A. As noted above, Applicant admitted in his SOR response that he used the falsified resume he had purchased from the third party to apply for and obtain employment with Company B.1 The Judge’s material findings regarding Applicant’s use of the falsified resume to obtain employment with Company B are based on substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the record evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014). Applicant also contends some dates and job titles are not accurate. In the decision, the Judge did not use the job titles that Applicant has referenced in his brief. Because we are unable to determine with any degree of certitude exactly what error Applicant is raising regarding the dates and titles, these assignments of error fail for lack of specificity. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05920 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). Applicant has not cited to any error likely to affect the outcome of the case. 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). 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.” 1 In his background interview, Applicant reportedly stated that he accidentally submitted the resume created by the third party when he applied for the job with Company B. Item 5 of the FORM.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board