CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03070 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 20-03070

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/16/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Juan J. Rivera
Government Counsel: Daniel P. O'Reilley
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 70-year-old individual with a long history of employment in federal contracting and military service, having held various security clearances since 1971. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline K (handling protected information). The allegations included a history of employment terminations, a letter of reprimand for unprofessional conduct, and falsification of his security clearance application.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to some allegations, including a misdemeanor battery charge and inaccuracies in time card submissions, but denied others, claiming he was laid off rather than terminated. He argued that he had a good reputation and had always protected classified information. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant's evidence was insufficient to mitigate the concerns raised in the SOR, particularly regarding his history of unprofessional conduct and the deliberate falsification of his security clearance application. Consequently, the judge ruled to deny the applicant's request for a security clearance, citing the lack of credibility in his explanations and the potential insider threat posed by his past behavior.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline KHandling Protected Information · 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. 20-03070

deniedDec 16, 2022· Hon. Juan J. Rivera· hearing

Summary

A 70-year-old former military officer was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The denial stemmed from a pattern of misconduct and poor judgment, including a letter of reprimand in February 1999 and a misdemeanor battery conviction in May 2002 for fighting in public.

The applicant also experienced multiple terminations from federal contractors. These included a March 2001 termination for argumentative behavior, a February 2015 termination for unprofessional conduct and insubordination, and a November 2019 termination for unprofessional conduct. Additionally, the applicant was removed from a contract in September 2018 at the customer's request and submitted inaccurate time cards.

A significant factor in the denial was the applicant's deliberate falsification of his 2019 security clearance application, where he failed to disclose these employment terminations. The judge concluded that the applicant's repeated poor judgment, failure to comply with rules for handling protected information, and deliberate omissions raised substantial doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of misconduct, including a letter of reprimand and multiple terminations from federal contractors.
The applicant was convicted of battery, which reflects poor judgment and reliability issues.
The applicant deliberately falsified his 2019 security clearance application by omitting relevant employment terminations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation

Key Rule Quoted

“Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.”
— Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399 (9th Cir. 1990)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 12, 2021
Answer filedApr 5, 2021
Hearing heldSep 7, 2022Originally scheduled for August 30, 2022, but rescheduled due to loss of clearance sponsor.
Decision dateDec 16, 2022

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Security Concerns Under Guideline E and K
Pattern of Poor Judgment Affecting Reliability and Trustworthiness
Deliberate Falsification of Security Clearance Application as a Disqualifying Factor

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 against the applicant on multiple allegations of personal conduct, including a history of unprofessional behavior, terminations from employment, and deliberate falsification of a security clearance application. The applicant's claims of misunderstanding and lack of awareness regarding his terminations were not sufficient to mitigate the concerns raised by his conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant received a letter of reprimand in February 1999.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant's employment with different federal contractors was terminated in March 2001 due to argumentative behavior towards his workers.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant was convicted of a misdemeanor battery charge and fighting in public in May 2002.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant submitted inaccurate time cards in violation of his company’s policy.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant was terminated from his employment in February 2015 for unprofessional conduct and insubordination.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant was removed from working on a contract after the customer asked the employer to do so in September 2018.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant was terminated from his employment in November 2019 for unprofessional conduct.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant falsified his 2019 SCA when he deliberately denied and failed to disclose that he was terminated from his employment.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible

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 K (Handling Protected Information) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant failed to comply with rules and regulations for handling protected information, leading to a ruling against the applicant under Guideline K. The applicant's overall pattern of poor judgment and deliberate falsification of information contributed to the decision to deny the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed to comply with rules and regulations for handling protected information.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Information Handling	Denied	—	—	—

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

Full decision

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