CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02709 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02709

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/18/2025
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 23-02709) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Erin C. Hogan
Government Counsel: Lauren A. Shure
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 38-year-old employee of a defense contractor who applied for a security clearance for the first time. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline E, Personal Conduct, primarily alleging that the applicant had falsified material facts on an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing. Specifically, he failed to disclose his termination from a previous employer, Company A, for misusing a company fuel card.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR, acknowledging that he intentionally omitted the termination from his application due to concerns about how it would affect his job prospects. He explained that he had used the company fuel card for personal use and was terminated in May 2020. The applicant provided evidence of his repayment of the debt incurred from this misuse and expressed remorse for his actions, stating that he had learned from the experience and intended to be honest moving forward. Character references from colleagues attested to his good character and commitment to integrity.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting his eligibility for access to classified information. The judge found that the applicant had mitigated the security concerns by acknowledging his past behavior, demonstrating remorse, and taking steps to rectify the situation. The judge concluded that the applicant's actions were unlikely to recur and did not cast doubt on his reliability or trustworthiness, thus favoring his case under the whole-person concept.
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. 23-02709

grantedMar 18, 2025· Hon. Erin C. Hogan· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old defense contractor employee was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited two primary allegations: falsifying material facts on an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing completed on June 8, 2023, and a prior termination from Company A for misusing a company fuel card. These issues raised disqualifying conditions related to deliberate misrepresentation and a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations.

However, the administrative judge applied several mitigating conditions. The applicant admitted to the falsification and took full responsibility for his actions. He also fully reimbursed Company A for the misused fuel card funds, completing all payments on time.

Furthermore, the applicant provided positive character references, which supported his assertion of having learned from his past mistakes. Demonstrating remorse and a commitment to rectifying his past conduct ultimately led to the favorable decision to grant the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant admitted to the falsification and took responsibility for his actions.
He fully reimbursed the company for the misused funds and completed payments on time.
Positive character references supported his claim of having learned from his past mistakes.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(c)appliedThe Offense Is Minor or Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment of Behavior and Positive Steps Taken
AG ¶ 17(e)appliedPositive Steps to Reduce Vulnerability to Exploitation

Key Rule Quoted

“the clearly consistent standard indicates that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 21, 2023
Answer filedJan 4, 2024
Hearing heldJan 7, 2025
Decision dateMar 18, 2025

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Importance of Full Disclosure in Security Clearance Applications
Weight of Character References in Security Clearance Decisions

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 falsified material facts on a security clearance application by failing to disclose his termination from Company A for misuse of a company fuel card. However, the judge concluded that the applicant mitigated the personal conduct concerns due to the passage of time, acceptance of responsibility, and positive changes in behavior. The outcome was favorable for the applicant, granting him a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant falsified material facts on an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing that he completed on June 8, 2023.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.b	Applicant was terminated from his employment with Company A for misuse of a company fuel card.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (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.