CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00302 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-00302

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/10/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Rhett E. Petcher
Applicant's Counsel: Bradley P. Moss
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 40-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Nigeria, employed as an information technology consultant for federal government clients. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines E (personal conduct) and F (financial considerations). The core allegations included the applicant's failure to report concurrent employment with multiple federal contractors and timekeeping fraud, specifically double billing for hours worked at different companies.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to some allegations but denied others, including any wrongdoing related to timekeeping. He claimed that his termination from Employer 1 was due to unreported foreign travel rather than the alleged timekeeping fraud. However, evidence presented by the government included testimonies from former supervisors and documentation indicating that the applicant had indeed engaged in double billing and had not disclosed his concurrent employment, which violated company policies.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guidelines E and F. The judge found the applicant's explanations unconvincing and noted that the evidence demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty and disregard for security protocols, ultimately denying his eligibility for access to classified information.
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. 23-00302

deniedSep 10, 2025· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen and IT consultant was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from serious allegations of timekeeping fraud, failure to report concurrent employment, and significant tax delinquencies, which raised substantial questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Specifically, the applicant engaged in timekeeping fraud by double-billing hours to multiple employers and failed to report concurrent employment as required by company policy. His credibility was further undermined by inconsistent statements regarding his employment and travel history.

Additionally, the applicant had significant unpaid federal tax liabilities totaling approximately $285,034 for tax years 2018 and 2019. These issues collectively led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant engaged in timekeeping fraud by double billing hours to multiple employers.
He failed to report concurrent employment as required by company policy.
The applicant provided inconsistent statements regarding his employment and travel history, undermining his credibility.
He has significant unpaid federal tax liabilities totaling approximately $285,034 for tax years 2018 and 2019.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(b)appliedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(f)appliedFailure to File or Fraudulently Filing Income Tax Returns
AG ¶ 19(g)appliedUnexplained Affluence
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas

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 issuedAug 14, 2023
Answer filedDec 18, 2023
Hearing heldJun 12, 2025continued to June 16, 2025
Decision dateSep 10, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Credibility Issues Arising From Inconsistent Statements and Failure to Report Required Information.

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

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