CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00116 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-00116

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/2/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 21-00116) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Braden M. Murphy
Government Counsel: Allison Marie, Sakeena Farhath
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 28-year-old individual with a bachelor's degree in computer information science, who had worked in various information technology positions since 2017. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) addressed allegations under Guideline E, personal conduct, stemming from the applicant's falsification of time records at two different employers and misrepresentation on security clearance applications. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined concerns regarding his conduct, including his resignation from Company M during an investigation into his timekeeping practices and his termination from Contractor T for similar reasons.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to falsifying time records at Company M but denied the allegations related to Contractor T, asserting that it would have been unwise to engage in such conduct after his previous termination. He acknowledged that he had resigned from Company M amid concerns about being fired, although he initially claimed his departure was for personal reasons. The applicant also admitted to inaccuracies in his security clearance applications but maintained that he did not intend to deceive.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not provided sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised by his personal conduct. The judge noted the applicant's admissions of wrongdoing and the pattern of misrepresentation, which undermined his credibility and raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness for access to classified information. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 21-00116

deniedFeb 2, 2023· Hon. Braden M. Murphy· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old IT professional was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to a pattern of falsifying time records and making misrepresentations on security clearance applications. The applicant admitted to falsifying time records at Company M, leading to his resignation when an investigation began. Subsequently, he was terminated from his contract with Contractor T in February 2020 for similar misconduct.

The applicant then made deliberately false statements on his security clearance application regarding his departure from Company M. Furthermore, he failed to disclose his termination from Contractor T on a second security clearance application. These actions raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

The judge determined that the applicant's admitted misconduct and lack of credible explanations demonstrated a consistent pattern of dishonesty and lack of candor. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant falsified time records at two jobs, raising serious concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
He made deliberately false statements on security clearance applications regarding his employment history.
The applicant's actions demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty and lack of candor.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse Information

Key Rule Quoted

“the clearly consistent standard indicates that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 15, 2021
Answer filedJul 26, 2021
Hearing heldSep 20, 2022via video-teleconference
Decision dateFeb 2, 2023

Cite For

Falsification of Time Records as a Disqualifying Condition Under Guideline E
Pattern of Dishonesty Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Candor in Security Clearance Applications

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 falsification of time records and making false statements on security clearance applications. The applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied based on these findings.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant falsified time records while working at Company M, representing that he worked hours that he did not work, and resigned upon being advised that he was under investigation for falsification of time records.	Against Applicant	Falsification of Employment or Other RecordsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.b	Applicant was terminated from his employment contract with Contractor T for falsification of time records in February 2020.	For Applicant	Falsification of Employment or Other Records	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant made deliberately false statements on his security clearance application regarding the circumstances of his departure from Company M.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.d	Applicant failed to disclose his termination from Contractor T in February 2020 on his second security clearance application.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	(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.