CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02659 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02659

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/6/2025
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Candace Le'i Garcia
Government Counsel: Brittany C. M. White
Applicant's Counsel: I. Charles McCullough, III
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 38-year-old individual who had worked primarily for various Department of Defense (DOD) contractors since 2009. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing a security concern under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), alleging that the applicant submitted approximately 427 false labor hours while employed by a DOD contractor from August 2021 to May 2022, which led to the suspension of her security clearance and termination of employment in September 2022.
During the proceedings, the applicant denied the allegations in the SOR, asserting that she was unaware her actions were impermissible and that her conduct was a result of a hostile work environment created by a former team lead. She provided evidence of her ongoing anxiety and harassment, which contributed to her actions. The administrative judge found that while the applicant's submission of false labor hours raised concerns about her judgment and reliability, she successfully mitigated these concerns by demonstrating that her behavior was influenced by unique circumstances, including harassment and a lack of work. The judge noted the absence of prior disciplinary actions and the positive character references provided by colleagues.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting her eligibility for access to classified information. The decision emphasized that the applicant's actions were not indicative of a pattern of behavior that would compromise national security, and her overall reliability and trustworthiness were supported by the evidence presented.
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. 23-02659

grantedAug 6, 2025· Hon. Candace Le'i Garcia· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old applicant with a background in DOD contracting was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed that the applicant submitted approximately 427 false labor hours to a DOD contractor, Company A, between August 2021 and May 2022. This conduct led to the suspension of her clearance and termination of her employment in September 2022.

The administrative judge considered disqualifying conditions related to deliberate misrepresentation and a pattern of dishonesty. However, mitigating conditions were applied, noting that the applicant's conduct was isolated and occurred under unique circumstances.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on several factors: the applicant's actions were isolated and not indicative of a pattern, she had followed instructions from Company A officials regarding billing for availability, and she acknowledged her behavior while taking steps to mitigate the situation. Ultimately, the judge concluded that her actions did not undermine her reliability or trustworthiness, and eligibility for access to classified information was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's conduct was isolated and occurred under unique circumstances.
She followed instructions from Company A officials regarding billing for availability.
The applicant acknowledged her behavior and took steps to mitigate the situation.

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(c)appliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent, or It Happened Under Such Unique Circumstances
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedThe Individual Has Acknowledged the Behavior and Obtained Counseling to Change the Behavior

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 24, 2024
Answer filedMay 7, 2024
Hearing heldFeb 13, 2025via video conference
Decision dateAug 6, 2025

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Consideration of Unique Circumstances in Security Clearance Cases
Impact of Isolated Incidents on Reliability Assessments

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 that the applicant submitted approximately 427 false labor hours while employed by a DOD contractor, which led to her clearance being suspended and her employment terminated. However, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that her conduct was isolated and unlikely to recur, thus consistent with the national interest to grant her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant submitted approximately 427 false labor hours while employed by a DOD contractor (Company A) from about August 2021 to May 2022, a consequence of which was her clearance being suspended and her employment terminated in about September 2022.	For Applicant	Falsification of Employment or Other Records	—	Denied	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse

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.