CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00426 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-00426

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/29/2024
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Robert J. Tuider
Government Counsel: Adrienne M. Driskill
Applicant's Counsel: Alan V. Edmunds
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 63-year-old systems engineer employed by a defense contractor since February 2019, seeking to retain his Secret security clearance, which he had held for approximately 35 years. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct), specifically alleging time mischarging during his previous employment with another defense contractor, which led to his termination in November 2018.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to receiving a written warning for time mischarging but denied any wrongdoing, asserting that the warning was a blanket response to a broader issue affecting multiple employees. He explained that his former employer had settled a government investigation related to timecard fraud, resulting in his termination along with others, despite no specific evidence implicating him. The applicant's testimony was supported by a coworker who corroborated the confusion surrounding timekeeping policies at their former employer and stated that management had directed employees to charge for travel time and remote work.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that he had mitigated the security concerns. The judge found the applicant's testimony credible and noted that he had maintained his security clearance for decades without incident. The lack of specific evidence against him and the corroborating testimony from his coworker contributed to the decision to grant the security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For 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. 22-00426

grantedMar 29, 2024· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

The applicant, a 63-year-old systems engineer with over 35 years of experience in the defense industry, faced security concerns under Guideline E due to a warning for time mischarging in 2013 and termination in 2018. The judge found the applicant's testimony credible, supported by a witness, and determined that the circumstances surrounding the applicant's termination were not indicative of misconduct, leading to the granting of security clearance.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: In about February 2013, Applicant received a written warning from his defense-contractor employer for time mischarging (1.a). In about November 2018, Applicant was terminated from his employment by a defense contractor for evidence of time mischarging and is not eligible for rehire (1.b).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 16(c), AG ¶ 16(d). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 17(f). The decision turned on the following: The applicant's testimony was credible and corroborated by a witness; The warning and termination were part of a broader settlement agreement and not solely based on the applicant's conduct; The applicant maintained a long history of successful employment and had his clearance renewed in 2019.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's testimony was credible and corroborated by a witness.
The warning and termination were part of a broader settlement agreement and not solely based on the applicant's conduct.
The applicant maintained a long history of successful employment and had his clearance renewed in 2019.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse Information That Is Not Explicitly Covered Under Any Other Guideline

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(f)appliedThe Information Was Unsubstantiated or From a Source of Questionable Reliability

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, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 29, 2022
Answer filedOct 18, 2022
Hearing heldApr 17, 2023
Decision dateMar 29, 2024

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Supported by Witness
Impact of Global Settlement Agreements on Individual Terminations

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: granted

The judge found in favor of the applicant regarding personal conduct concerns related to time mischarging. The applicant admitted to receiving a warning and being terminated but denied any wrongdoing, and the judge found the evidence insufficient to implicate him in misconduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	In about February 2013, Applicant received a written warning from his defense-contractor employer for time mischarging.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	In about November 2018, Applicant was terminated from his employment by a defense contractor for evidence of time mischarging and is not eligible for rehire.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other

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.