CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01949 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-01949

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/21/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 21-01949) →
Participants
Judge: Robert E. Coacher
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Applicant's Counsel: Alan V. Edmunds
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 39-year-old individual with a background in the U.S. Marine Corps and currently serving in the Army National Guard. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline J (criminal conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's forgery of military orders to receive paid military leave from two civilian employers, which led to his termination from one of those positions.
The applicant admitted to forging six military training orders and submitting them to his employers for financial gain, while denying the allegation that his actions caused his termination. He explained that he was facing financial difficulties and believed his employers were not compensating him fairly for overtime. The applicant also had a history of disciplinary actions, including a written warning for excessive force and a counseling for providing false statements related to the forged orders. Although he received a felony charge for tampering with records, this charge was later dismissed.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns under both guidelines. The judge emphasized the applicant's lack of candor and the serious nature of his actions, which raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness to protect classified information. The ruling highlighted that the applicant's conduct demonstrated a disregard for rules and regulations, ultimately leading to the denial of his security clearance.
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. 21-01949

deniedMar 21, 2023· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old former Marine Corps sergeant and current Army National Guard member was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant admitted to falsifying six military orders by forging an authorizing official's signature. These forged orders were submitted to two employers to receive paid military leave, resulting in his termination from one employer.

Further concerns included a written warning and probation in December 2015 for using excessive force, counseling in February 2016 for failing to have a proper uniform, and counseling in July 2017 for violating UCMJ Article 107 by providing false statements regarding the forged orders. In January 2018, the applicant was charged with a felony offense of tampering with records for submitting these forged orders to his civilian employers.

Despite some mitigating factors related to his military service and personal circumstances, the judge found the applicant's conduct to be premeditated and to involve multiple instances of dishonesty. These actions raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to falsifying military orders to receive paid military leave, which led to his termination from employment.
His actions raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The judge found that the applicant's conduct was premeditated and involved multiple instances of dishonesty.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(d)appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant acknowledged his behavior and presented evidence of community service and positive evaluations.
AG ¶ 32(d)notedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 20, 2021
Answer filedJan 19, 2022
Hearing heldNov 14, 2022
Decision dateMar 21, 2023

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns Under Guidelines E and J
Issues of Reliability and Trustworthiness Due to Falsification of Documents
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations.

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 the allegation of falsifying military orders, which raised significant concerns about his judgment and trustworthiness. The applicant's actions led to his termination from one employer, but the judge ruled in favor of the applicant regarding the consequences of those actions, as they were deemed duplicative of the falsification allegation. Overall, the applicant did not mitigate the personal conduct concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant falsified six military orders by forging the authorizing military official’s signature and submitted those orders to two employers in order to receive paid military leave.	Against Applicant	Falsification of Employment or Other RecordsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.b	Applicant’s actions caused his termination by one of those employers.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—

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 against the applicant on allegations of criminal conduct under Guideline J, specifically regarding the applicant's actions related to forgery and false statements. The applicant's use of excessive force was not deemed a criminal offense, and the judge noted that the applicant's actions raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	In December 2015, Applicant was issued a written warning from his employer and placed on probation for using excessive force in performing his duties.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	In February 2016, Applicant was counseled for missing movement when he failed to have a proper uniform for duty.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	In July 2017, Applicant was counseled for a violation of UCMJ Article 107, for providing false statements to the Marine Corps with regard to his forged military orders.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	Claimed Financial Event Outside Control
2.d	In January 2018, Applicant was charged with a felony offense of tampering with records by submitting the forged military orders to his civilian employers.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	Claimed Financial Event Outside Control

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.