CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00119 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00119

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/12/2025
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Mark W. Harvey
Government Counsel: Cassie L. Ford
Applicant's Counsel: Bradley P. Moss, Geoffrey Deweese
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 39-year-old employee of a Defense contractor who had held a security clearance for 17 years. The allegations against her, outlined in the Statement of Reasons (SOR), were primarily related to personal conduct under Guideline E. Specifically, the SOR alleged that she submitted fraudulent time records between April 30, 2018, and June 8, 2019, claiming hours she did not work, resulting in an estimated loss of $10,521 to the government.
During the proceedings, the applicant denied the allegations without elaboration but provided substantial mitigation, asserting that her timecard discrepancies were due to authorized training and work-related activities that were not properly documented. She claimed that her supervisors had approved her attendance at classes and that the investigative reports did not accurately reflect her explanations or the circumstances surrounding her timecard submissions. The administrative judge found that the applicant's explanations and the lack of conclusive evidence of intentional wrongdoing mitigated the security concerns. Consequently, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting her eligibility for access to classified information.
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. 24-00119

grantedAug 12, 2025· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old former federal employee with 17 years of service and a prior security clearance was granted eligibility for access to classified information despite concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The allegations centered on fraudulent time records and inaccurate timecards, specifically citing Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 16(d) and AG ¶ 16(e).

The administrative judge found that the applicant provided substantial mitigation for the timecard discrepancies, including evidence of authorized absences and training. Furthermore, positive character testimonials from former supervisors and coworkers supported the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.

The judge applied multiple mitigating conditions, including AG ¶ 17(a), AG ¶ 17(b), AG ¶ 17(c), AG ¶ 17(d), AG ¶ 17(e), and AG ¶ 17(f), emphasizing the importance of the whole-person concept in the evaluation. Ultimately, the security concerns were deemed mitigated, and the applicant's security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant provided substantial mitigation regarding the timecard discrepancies, including evidence of authorized absences and training.
Positive character testimonials from former supervisors and coworkers supported the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.
The judge emphasized the importance of the whole-person concept in evaluating the applicant's conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse Information
AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(c)appliedBehavior Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's timecard issues were not recent and occurred under unique circumstances.
AG ¶ 17(a)rejectedPrompt Efforts to Correct
AG ¶ 17(b)rejectedCooperation Due to Legal Advice
AG ¶ 17(d)rejectedAcknowledgment and Counseling
AG ¶ 17(e)rejectedReduction of Vulnerability
AG ¶ 17(f)rejectedUnsubstantiated Information

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 29, 2024
Answer filedApr 16, 2024
Hearing heldMay 29, 2025
Decision dateAug 12, 2025

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Importance of Character Evidence in Security Clearance Decisions
Whole-person Assessment in Security Clearance Evaluations

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.