CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03908 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 19-03908

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/3/2021
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Government Counsel: John C. Lynch
Case Summary
which he agreed to repay the amount owed. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline J (criminal conduct) due to the applicant's submission of falsified work records and his criminal history, which included multiple arrests for assault and battery and operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
The applicant admitted to submitting false time records, acknowledging that he made a "dishonest and terrible decision" to claim hours he did not work, driven by financial pressures related to his education. He also admitted to the OUI offense but denied knowledge of a bench warrant and claimed that his previous assault charges were mischaracterized. The applicant expressed remorse and requested a chance to demonstrate his trustworthiness.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's security clearance, stating that the applicant's fraudulent conduct raised significant doubts about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. While some of the criminal conduct concerns were mitigated, the judge found that the personal conduct issues stemming from the falsification of work records were not sufficiently mitigated, leading to the conclusion that granting clearance was not consistent with national security interests.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 19-03908

deniedMay 3, 2021· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Nigeria, working as an engineer, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant falsely claimed 1,035 hours of work not performed between October 1, 2015, and January 22, 2016, resulting in a financial gain of $21,735. This fraudulent activity raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Further concerns stemmed from the applicant's past criminal conduct, including an arrest for OUI in July 2013, and prior arrests for assault and battery. While the applicant expressed remorse and made efforts toward restitution for the falsely claimed hours, these actions were not deemed sufficient to mitigate the seriousness of the fraudulent behavior and his criminal history.

The judge ultimately found that the disqualifying conditions, specifically the false claims and criminal conduct, outweighed the mitigating efforts. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant submitted false time records claiming 1,035 hours of work not performed, resulting in a significant financial gain.
His past arrests for assault and battery and OUI contributed to doubts about his judgment and trustworthiness.
Despite efforts to repay the amount owed, the fraudulent behavior was deemed too serious to mitigate.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Areas
AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse Information That Is Not Explicitly Covered Under Any Other Guideline
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment of the Behavior and Positive Steps TakenThe applicant expressed remorse and has made restitution payments.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 18, 2020
Answer filedMar 31, 2020
Hearing heldApr 7, 2021via DCS video teleconference
Decision dateMay 3, 2021

Cite For

Serious Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Implications Under Guideline J
The Impact of Fraudulent Behavior on Security Clearance Eligibility

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant submitted false time records to his employer, claiming hours not worked, which constituted a pattern of dishonesty. The personal conduct concerns were not mitigated, leading to a denial of clearance eligibility.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant falsely claimed 1,035 in work hours not performed from October 1, 2015 through January 22, 2016.	Against Applicant	Falsification of Employment or Other RecordsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant's criminal conduct raised security concerns, particularly due to an arrest for operating under the influence (OUI) in July 2013. The judge ruled against the applicant on this allegation, indicating that the concerns were not mitigated despite some positive steps taken by the applicant since the incidents.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a–2.d	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—
2.e	Applicant was arrested for OUI in July 2013.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Diversion or Deferred	Unknown	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.