CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01876 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-01876

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/1/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Edward W. Loughran
Government Counsel: Adrienne M. Driskill
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 38-year-old employee of a staffing company that provided personnel to a defense contractor. He applied for a security clearance, which was challenged under Guideline A (allegiance to the United States) and Guideline E (personal conduct) due to his involvement in an illegal money laundering scheme. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined concerns regarding his actions, which included knowingly participating in a scheme that could potentially fund terrorism, despite claiming ignorance about the ultimate destination of the funds.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR, acknowledging that he was motivated by greed and did not care about the implications of his actions. He initially misrepresented the nature of his involvement during interviews, later admitting that he had realized the scheme was illegal. The applicant's testimony was inconsistent, particularly regarding his communications with the U.S. Secret Service, which he claimed indicated the funds were linked to terrorism, although he later retracted this assertion.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the security concerns related to his allegiance to the United States. The judge found that the applicant's actions demonstrated a willingness to compromise national security, as he knowingly engaged in illegal activities without regard for their potential consequences. The ruling emphasized that the applicant's prioritization of personal gain over national interests raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline AAllegiance to the United States · Against 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. 22-01876

deniedAug 1, 2023· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old employee of a staffing company was denied a security clearance under Guideline A (Allegiance) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's involvement in an illegal money laundering scheme and his provision of false information during his background interview.

Specifically, the Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant participated in an illegal money laundering scheme, demonstrating a lack of allegiance to the United States, and that he provided false information regarding the nature of his wire transfers during his background interview. While it was also alleged that his conduct reflected questionable judgment and created vulnerability to exploitation, an allegation that his answer about associating with individuals involved in terrorism was false was not proven.

The judge ultimately found that the applicant's involvement in the money laundering scheme indicated a lack of allegiance to the United States. Furthermore, providing false information during his background interview undermined his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant was involved in an illegal money laundering scheme, indicating a lack of allegiance to the United States.
He provided false information during his background interview, undermining his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 4(a)raisedInvolvement in Illegal Activities
AG ¶ 4(b)raisedAssociation with Individuals Involved in Illegal Activities
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation

Key Rule Quoted

“An individual who engages in acts against the United States or provides support or encouragement to those who do has already demonstrated willingness to compromise national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 13, 2022
Answer filedDec 17, 2022
Hearing heldJul 12, 2023
Decision dateAug 1, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Illegal Activities Under Guideline A
False Information During Background Checks Under Guideline E
Lack of Allegiance to the United States 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 A (Allegiance to the United States) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant was involved in an illegal money laundering scheme, which raised significant concerns regarding his allegiance to the United States. Despite the applicant's claims of misunderstanding and lack of intent to deceive, the judge concluded that his actions demonstrated questionable judgment and a willingness to prioritize financial gain over national interests, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶4)	Mitigating applied (¶5)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was involved in an illegal money laundering scheme and did not care who benefitted from it, indicating a lack of allegiance to the United States.	Against Applicant	Sabotage Espionage Treason Terrorism or Sedition	Admitted	(a) involvement in, support of, training to commit, or advocacy of any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, terrorism, or sedition against the United States	—	—

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

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 provided false information during his background interview regarding wire transfers, which reflected questionable judgment and created vulnerability to exploitation. However, the applicant's response to whether he associated with anyone involved in activities to further terrorism was found to be credible. The overall outcome was a denial of the application for security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant provided false information during his background interview regarding the nature of his wire transfers.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b	Applicant's answer to whether he associated with anyone involved in activities to further terrorism was not proven false.	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant's conduct reflected questionable judgment and created vulnerability to exploitation.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—

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.