ISCR Case 24-00032

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-00032

deniedJul 30, 2025· Hon. John Bayard Glendon· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old former U.S. Marine was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant was terminated from a U.S. Government Contractor in February 2022 for time and attendance fraud, specifically for charging 770.5 hours he did not work between January 2020 and February 2022. This conduct raised significant questions about his judgment and reliability.

Additionally, the applicant had several unresolved financial issues. These included a $6,526 charged-off account from 2012 or 2013, which he attributed to unemployment after his Marine Corps discharge. He also had a $1,727 collection account for a retail store credit card. While a small claims court dismissed a lawsuit against him for this debt in April 2019 due to the statute of limitations, this was not considered a resolution on the merits, and he did not satisfactorily document his claim that the debt was paid. A $106 collection account owed to an internet service provider was also disputed, with the applicant claiming he had paid it.

While some financial concerns were mitigated, the judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate concerns under the personal conduct guideline, specifically regarding the timecard fraud. The applicant did not provide credible evidence to dispute these allegations, and his unresolved debts combined with questionable judgment led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to mitigate concerns under the personal conduct guideline due to timecard fraud leading to his termination.
The applicant did not provide credible evidence to dispute the allegations of timecard fraud.
The applicant's unresolved debts and questionable judgment raised significant concerns about his reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe debts arose long ago and were infrequent.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant disputed the legitimacy of the past-due debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 16, 2024
Answer filedAug 2, 2024Requested decision on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateJul 30, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Debts Under Guideline F
Significant Concerns Regarding Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Impact of Timecard Fraud 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.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	February 2022 termination from U.S. Government Contractor for Time and Attendance Fraud. Applicant’s former employer investigated the accuracy of Applicant’s timesheets during the period January 2020 to February 2022. The employer concluded that he charged 770.5 hours on his timesheet that he did not work.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

February 2022 termination from U.S. Government Contractor for Time and Attendance Fraud. Applicant’s former employer investigated the accuracy of Applicant’s timesheets during the period January 2020 to February 2022. The employer concluded that he charged 770.5 hours on his timesheet that he did not work.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Charged-Off Account ($6,526). Applicant disclosed the existence of this delinquent debt in the 2016 Questionnaire. He wrote that he was unemployed for two years after he was discharged from the Marines, and he was unable to pay this credit-card account. The debt became delinquent in 2012 or 2013. He stated that he was saving funds to pay the debt with a lump-sum payment. He commented further that $6,526	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	—
1.b	Collection Account, Retail Store Credit Card ($1,727). Applicant disputed this debt in the SOR Response. He claims that this account was closed after being paid off. The creditor, however, sued him in small claims court. Applicant defended himself and was successful in having the court dismiss the action in April 2019 due to it being barred from collection by the statute of limitations. The dismissal was without prejudice. Since this is not a resolution on the merits of the case, Applicant has not satisfactorily documented his initial claim that the debt was in fact paid and has been fully resolved. Also, his denial of the SOR allegation based upon the court ruling that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations merely establishes that the claim is no longer enforceable. $1,727	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	—
1.c	Collection Account Owed to an Internet Service Provider ($106). Applicant denied this debt claiming that he paid the last month’s payment to his Internet service provider after his discharge from the Marine Corps. In the 2016 Questionnaire, he acknowledged that the service provider and its collection agency had continued to seek payment of a debt he believes he has paid. $106	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Charged-Off Account ($6,526). Applicant disclosed the existence of this delinquent debt in the 2016 Questionnaire. He wrote that he was unemployed for two years after he was discharged from the Marines, and he was unable to pay this credit-card account. The debt became delinquent in 2012 or 2013. He stated that he was saving funds to pay the debt with a lump-sum payment. He commented further that

$6,526

For Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

—

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

—

1.b

Collection Account, Retail Store Credit Card ($1,727). Applicant disputed this debt in the SOR Response. He claims that this account was closed after being paid off. The creditor, however, sued him in small claims court. Applicant defended himself and was successful in having the court dismiss the action in April 2019 due to it being barred from collection by the statute of limitations. The dismissal was without prejudice. Since this is not a resolution on the merits of the case, Applicant has not satisfactorily documented his initial claim that the debt was in fact paid and has been fully resolved. Also, his denial of the SOR allegation based upon the court ruling that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations merely establishes that the claim is no longer enforceable.

$1,727

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

—

1.c

Collection Account Owed to an Internet Service Provider ($106). Applicant denied this debt claiming that he paid the last month’s payment to his Internet service provider after his discharge from the Marine Corps. In the 2016 Questionnaire, he acknowledged that the service provider and its collection agency had continued to seek payment of a debt he believes he has paid.

$106

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

—

Loading case…

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision