CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03797 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 19-03797

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/13/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Government Counsel: Raashid S. Williams
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 56-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Pakistan, who sought security clearance eligibility after being denied access to a U.S. government agency's installation due to concerns under Guideline E, personal conduct. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined allegations of a pattern of falsification and inconsistent statements made on his security clearance application and during interviews with government investigators.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to being denied access but denied intentionally falsifying any information, claiming he answered to the best of his knowledge. He acknowledged some discrepancies regarding his employment history and foreign travel but attributed these to oversight rather than intentional deceit. The applicant also denied recollection of being fired from previous jobs and maintained that he had not violated any agreements with his employers.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not mitigated the security concerns raised by his pattern of false and inconsistent statements. The judge emphasized that the applicant's admissions and explanations did not sufficiently address the serious nature of the allegations, which included significant discrepancies in his employment history and failure to disclose prior investigations and foreign travel. As a result, clearance eligibility was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal 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. 19-03797

deniedApr 13, 2022· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 56-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to a pattern of falsification on his SF 86 and employment history. In June 2019, his access to a U.S. government agency's installation was revoked for personal conduct and falsification, which was deemed an unacceptable risk to government assets and information systems.

The applicant was alleged to have falsified his May 2016 SF 86 by negatively responding to inquiries about adverse employment information and deliberately failing to disclose the aforementioned revocation. He also allegedly omitted material facts from the same SF 86 by not listing relevant employment. Further allegations included being fired from jobs in approximately March 2011 for timekeeping issues and in November 2010 for attendance issues and not being a good fit.

Despite admitting to some allegations, the applicant denied intentional wrongdoing, claiming he responded to the best of his knowledge. However, the judge found a pattern of falsification and inconsistent statements, noting the applicant's lack of credibility due to numerous omissions and discrepancies. Insufficient mitigating information was provided to resolve concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his clearance eligibility.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant exhibited a pattern of falsification and inconsistent statements on his security clearance application and during interviews.
He failed to provide sufficient mitigating information to resolve the concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness.
The judge found the applicant's lack of credibility due to numerous omissions and discrepancies in his statements.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse Information That Is Not Explicitly Covered Under Any Other Guideline

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 30, 2021
Answer filedJul 31, 2021
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateApr 13, 2022

Cite For

Pattern of Falsification and Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Insufficient Mitigation of Security Concerns
Credibility Issues Affecting 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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant's access to a U.S. government agency was revoked due to a pattern of falsification and personal conduct that posed an unacceptable risk. The judge ruled against the applicant on the allegations of falsification and employment issues, while finding in favor of the applicant regarding the specific allegations of falsification on the SF 86.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant’s access to a U.S. government agency’s installation was revoked in June 2019 for a pattern of falsification and personal conduct found to pose an unacceptable risk to the government’s physical assets and information systems.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.b	Applicant falsified his May 2016 Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (SF 86) by responding negatively to its inquiries regarding adverse employment information and by deliberately failing to disclose that information as set forth in subparagraph 1.a, 1.b [sic], above.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.c	Applicant deliberately omitted material facts from his May 2016 SF 86 by not listing the employment as set forth in subparagraph 1.a, 1.b, above.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.d	Applicant was fired from jobs in approximately March 2011 for timekeeping issues.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.e	Applicant was fired from jobs in November 2010 for not being a good fit for the job and attendance issues.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

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

Full decision

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