CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02919 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-02919

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/28/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Candace Le'i Garcia
Government Counsel: Carroll J. Connelley
Case Summary
the totality of the circumstances. The applicant in this case was a 31-year-old Information Security Service Officer who had previously served in the U.S. Army. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons citing security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline F (financial considerations). The core allegations included overstating 52 hours of labor charges, resulting in a termination from his position with a DOD subcontractor.
The applicant denied the allegations, asserting that he did not falsify his timecard and attributing the discrepancies to a workplace culture that involved strict monitoring of breaks. He maintained that he was current on his financial obligations and had no prior issues. However, investigations by both the DOD contractor and subcontractor confirmed the overstatement of hours, leading to his termination. The administrative judge found that the applicant failed to take responsibility for his actions, which undermined his credibility.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the security concerns related to personal conduct and financial considerations. The judge emphasized the importance of trust and reliability in safeguarding classified information, determining that the applicant's behavior raised significant doubts about his judgment and trustworthiness. As a result, eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 21-02919

deniedFeb 28, 2023· Hon. Candace Le'i Garcia· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old male applicant with a high school diploma was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from allegations that, between December 2019 and February 2020, while employed by a Department of Defense subcontractor, he overstated 52 hours in labor charges, totaling $4,223. These allegations led to his termination from that position.

The applicant denied the allegations but did not provide sufficient evidence to refute the claims. Consequently, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant failed to mitigate concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness.

The decision cited the applicant's overstatement of labor charges and subsequent termination as key factors. Ultimately, the lack of sufficient evidence to counter the allegations resulted in the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to mitigate personal conduct and financial concerns.
The applicant overstated labor charges, leading to termination from his position.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to counter the allegations against him.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse InformationThe applicant's overstated labor charges raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
AG ¶ 19(d)appliedDeceptive or Illegal Financial PracticesThe applicant's actions constituted deceptive financial practices.

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 15, 2022
Answer filed—Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateFeb 28, 2023

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Trust and Reliability in Handling Classified Information

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 against the applicant on the personal conduct allegation of overstating labor charges while employed by a DOD subcontractor, which led to his termination. The applicant's denials were not sufficient to mitigate the concerns raised by the allegation, resulting in a denied security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant overstated 52 hours in labor charges amounting to $4,223, while working for a DOD subcontractor between December 2019 and February 2020, and his employment was consequently terminated.	Against Applicant	Falsification of Employment or Other Records	—	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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the financial allegations under Guideline F, specifically regarding overstated labor charges amounting to $4,223. The applicant's denials were not sufficient to mitigate the concerns raised by the evidence presented.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	that Applicant overstated 52 hours in labor charges amounting to $4,223, while working for a DOD subcontractor between December 2019 and February 2020, and his employment was consequently terminated. $4,223	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other

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

Full decision

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