CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00729 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-00729

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/28/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Candace Le'i Garcia
Government Counsel: John C. Lynch
Applicant's Counsel: Dan Meyer
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 40-year-old background investigator who had worked for defense contractors and was seeking a security clearance. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct), specifically alleging that the applicant had falsified Reports of Investigation (ROIs) by claiming to have conducted interviews that did not occur. The SOR detailed instances of submitting placeholder reports and manipulating completion dates, which led to a reinvestigation by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to submitting reports and reopening them but denied the allegations of falsification. She attributed her actions to pressure from her employer to meet deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic. The administrative judge found that the applicant's admissions and the evidence presented, including testimony from a government witness, established a pattern of misconduct that undermined her credibility and trustworthiness.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that she failed to mitigate the security concerns related to her personal conduct. The judge emphasized the importance of integrity in background investigations and the serious implications of falsifying information in this context, leading to a denial of her eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 23-00729

deniedMar 28, 2025· Hon. Candace Le'i Garcia· hearing

Summary

Candace Le’i Garcia, a 40-year-old background investigator, was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to issues including falsifying reports and a lack of candor. In March 2021, she was suspended from her employment with defense contractor B after it was discovered she routinely submitted placeholder Reports of Investigation (ROIs) on their due dates, which contained little to no information.

Subsequently, a U.S. Government agency's Office of the Inspector General reinvestigated the investigations Garcia worked on between June 20, 2020, and April 8, 2021. This reinvestigation determined that Garcia had falsified ROIs on multiple occasions by claiming to have interviewed individuals when she had not.

Garcia admitted to submitting placeholder reports. However, the judge found her testimony inconsistent and not credible, concluding that her actions involved falsification and raised significant doubts about her reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, her security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to submitting placeholder reports that contained little to no information.
The applicant's actions were found to involve falsification of reports by stating she had interviewed individuals when she had not.
The judge determined that the applicant's testimony was inconsistent and not credible, failing to mitigate the security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse Information That Is Not Explicitly Covered Under Any Other Guideline
AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation

Key Rule Quoted

“Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.”
— AG ¶ 15

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 29, 2023
Answer filedOct 9, 2023
Hearing heldSep 4, 2024rescheduled from August 7, 2024
Decision dateMar 28, 2025

Cite For

Issues of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Credibility Assessments in Security Clearance Cases
The Impact of Falsification on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 allegations of personal conduct related to falsifying Reports of Investigation (ROIs) while employed as a federal background investigator. The applicant admitted to the allegations but denied the underlying conduct, which the judge did not find credible, leading to a denial of security clearance eligibility.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was suspended from employment as a federal background investigator for defense contractor B in March 2021, after it was discovered she routinely submitted on their due dates placeholder ROIs that contained little to no information.	Against Applicant	Falsification of Employment or Other RecordsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
1.b	Due to the problems noted in SOR 1.a, the Office of the Inspector General of a U.S. Government agency had to reinvestigate the investigations Applicant worked on between June 20, 2020, and April 8, 2021. During the reinvestigation, Agency determined Applicant falsified ROIs on various occasions by stating she had interviewed someone when, in fact, she had not.	Against Applicant	Falsification of Employment or Other RecordsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (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.