ISCR Case No. 24-01917

RGSTROM, Eric H., Administrative Judge: Applicant mitigated the

nancial considerations security concerns. She did not mitigate the personal conduct security concerns. Eligibili

for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On February 19, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline F (financial considerations). The DCSA acted under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented on June 8, 2017. In Applicant’s May 13, 2025 response to the SOR (Answer), she admitted, with explanations, SOR ¶¶ 1.b. and 1.d. She admitted in part and de

ed in part SOR ¶¶ 1.e.- 1.i. She denied the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a., 1.c., 2.a., 2.b., and 2.c., and denied deliberately providing false information concerning SOR ¶¶ 1.j. through 1.r. She did not attach any documentary evidence. She requested a hearing before a Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) administrative judge. (Answer)

On July 11, 2025, the Government was ready to proceed to a hearing. I was assigned this case on December 17, 2025. On January 16, 2026, DOHA issued a notice scheduling the hearing for February 2, 2026. Due to a potential government shutdown, the hearing was rescheduled for February 9, 2026 via video-teleconference. After Applicant encountered technological problems on February 9, 2026, an in-person hearing was scheduled for February 17, 2026. The hearing proceeded as rescheduled. The Government proffered 12 evidentiary exhibits, which I admitted as Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 12, without objection. Applicant and four witnesses testified. Applicant submitted 39 evidentiary exhibits, which I admitted as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A through AM. At Applicant’s request, the record remained open until March 25, 2026, to provide her an opportunity to supplement the evidentiary record. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on February 24, 2026. Applicant timely provided five post-hearing submissions, which I admitted as AE AN through AR, without objection. The record closed on March 30, 2026, upon the Government’s review of Applicant’s post- hearing submissions. Findings of Fact Applicant is 56 years old. She earned a bachelor’s degree in December 1994 and a commercial driver’s license (CDL) in April 2022. She was married in June 1997, separated in July 2010, and divorced in August 2014. She has four children, ages 19, 22, 24, and 25. The November 2016 custody order established joint legal custody concerning all four children and gave Applicant’s former spouse primary physical custody. She has had little to no contact with her children since 2019. (GE 1, GE 2, GE 4 at 26; AE AJ; Tr. 103-107) After her removal from Navy civilian employment in December 2019, Applicant was employed in several, at times overlapping, part-time positions until her full-time employment as a logistics manager for a federal contractor from December 2020 to June 2021. She remained unemployed from June to August 2021, and then found part-time employment at a restaurant from September to November 2021. From January to December 2022, she was employed full time as a long-haul truck driver, and she was terminated following an accident with a company vehicle. She remained unemployed from January to September 2023. From September to November 2023, she was employed as a program manager for a private company. From November 2023 to February 2024, she was employed as a logistics manager for the Department of the Air Force; however, she spent most of this time on paid administrative leave because she lacked access to classified information. She testified that, during her Air Force employment, she learned that she did not have a clearance, but she had known since her removal from Federal service that “it was in suspended capacity.” During the hearing, she testified that she “did not think [her clearance eligibility] was fully revoked” upon her removal from Federal service. She further claimed that she knew her employment had been suspended but not her clearance. (AE AN; Tr. 107-125) 2

During much of 2024, Applicant worked as a t emporary employee assisting with local and national elections. From June to October 2024, she worked part time as a bartender. Since September 2024, she has been a full-time employee at a grocery store, earning approximately $16 an hour. She also worked part-time as a seasonal delivery driver from November 2024 to January and from November to December 2025. (Tr. 107- 111) Personal Conduct The SOR alleges personal conduct security concerns based on criminal arrests and charges, rules violations, employment terminations, and falsifications. These allegations are grouped and largely addressed chronologically. In July 2010, Applicant was charged with domestic violence, a misdemeanor, following an altercation with her then spouse, who was also charged. Although the charge was later dismissed, she could not explain why she reported the charge on her January 2018 Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) but not her February 2022 e-QIP. She separated from her husband in about June 2010, but the divorce was not finalized until August 2014. Under the custody agreement, Applicant maintained joint custody and was required to pay approximately $500 monthly in child support. (GE 1 at 47, GE 4 at 19-20, 26; Tr. 192-194) During the contentious divorce and

ustody proceedings, an attorney was assigned to represent the interests of the children. He noted, in a November 2016 email, a recent incident involving the children’s mistreatment of Applicant. He stated, “I leave the parties with this thought – If the boys are willing to act in this manner towards their own Mother, then I shudder to think to what extent are they eventually will be willing to go with other people with whom they don’t know, or don’t respect.” (AE AF) SOR ¶¶ 1.i., 1.q., and 1.r. In February 2015, Applicant was involved in a physical altercation with two of her minor children. During her August 2022 OPM interview, she explained that one of her children had stolen money from her dresser. Her 13-year-old and 11-year-old sons then attacked her. When law enforcement officers arrived, the two boys claimed that Applicant had abused them, and she was charged with assault. Court records establish she was charged with (1) assault – second degree, a misdemeanor; and (2) child abuse – second degree, a felony. She was arrested, taken to a detention center, and attended at least one court hearing. She was aware, in 2015, that one of the charges was a felony. The charges against Applicant were dismissed in about August 2015. (GE 1 at 47, GE 4 at 26, GE 12; Tr. 184-187, 194) On her January 2018 e-QIP, Under Section 22 – Police Record, Applicant reported that she had been charged with assault in February 2015 and that she had been the victim of an assault by her minor children. Under the field for whether the charge was a felony or misdemeanor, she listed “Other.” Applicant answered “NO” to the query, “Have you EVER been charged with any felony offense?” (GE 3) 3

On May 18, 2018, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator on behalf of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). During the interview, she described the February 2015 altercation with her two sons. She admitted having been arrested and charged; however, she did not list the charges or whether they were misdemeanors or felonies. She explained that her charges had been expunged in early 2018. (GE 4 at 26) On her February 2022 e-QIP, under Section 22 – Police Record, Applicant denied any criminal charges in the previous seven years and denied having ever been charged with a felony offense. (GE 2 at 45) On August 31, 2022, Applicant was interviewed by a different OPM investigator. During the interview, Applicant disclosed incidents involving her children in 2012 and 2018; however, she did not discuss the 2015 felony charge. (GE 4 at 18-21) On her February 2023 e-QIP, under Section 22 – Police Record, Applicant reported her July 2010 and February 2015 charges. Her responses and descriptions mirrored verbatim those in her January 2018 e-QIP under Section 22. She denied ever having been charged with a felony offense. (GE 1 at 46-49) During the March 2023 OPM interview, Applicant admitted that she had been charged with felony child abuse and assault in March 2015. She explained that she had discussed the charges during a previous investigation and had not updated Section 22 of her February 2022 e-QIP. (GE 2, GE 4 at 4) At the hearing, Applicant acknowledged that she had disclosed her arrests on her 2018 e-QIP but not on her 2022 e-QIP. She explained that she probably deleted this information, on the pre-populated 2022 e-QIP, because she had believed the charge was expunged as of 2019. After she had completed the 2022 e-QIP, she learned that the 2015 charges had not been expunged. (Tr. 189-190) Removal from Federal Service and Clearance Suspension From January 1994 to December 2019, Applicant was employed in various civilian positions with the Department of the Navy, most recently as a program manager (GS-14 equivalent). In April 1994, she was granted a secret clearance, and her clearance remained active until July 2019. (GE 1 at 27, 53-55) Several SOR allegations are based upon Applicant’s misconduct, which triggered the suspension of her clearance and then her removal from Federal service. Additional SOR allegations then involve Applicant’s descriptions of her clearance and separation on her e-QIPs. At the hearing, Applicant discussed her Navy civilian employment in detail. For the last several years of her Navy employment, her supervisor was K. After K retired in April 2019, R served as Applicant’s supervisor. Applicant testified that her requests for sick leave and annual leave were repeatedly denied by K and R and that she was informed 4

she was denied leave for not following protocols. Applicant denied receiving an official written reprimand for violating leave protocols. She explained that she was listed as “absent without leave” or AWOL “numerous times” despite requesting leave. “There were multiple instances [K] would put me as AWOL, even though I had ample leave.” She received unpaid leave during these instances despite having annual leave and sick leave available. She claimed that she had an unhealthy work environment and had been targeted by K and R. (Tr. 130, 132, 211-213; AE AR) At the hearing, Applicant explained that a triggering event resulted in her decision to avoid the office space, falsify her timecard, and lie to multiple supervisors about attending a training. A week prior to her falsified timecard, Applicant had an unpleasant interaction with H, a supervisor from another department with whom she interacted in the workplace. According to Applicant, H walked up behind Applicant and whispered something in her ear. Both his proximity and the content of his comment upset Applicant, and they were alone in the office at the time. At the hearing, she described it as being “verbally, sexually assaulted” by H. Applicant reported the incident to her supervisor R, who had recently taken over Applicant’s department. Applicant testified that R laughed, dismissed H’s comment and behavior, and advised Applicant not to report the incident to the human resources department. She further testified that H had previously kissed the back of her hand and had made lewd comments to and about Applicant for the previous two years. Applicant did not report the interaction to any other co-workers at that time, but she did inform her mother and a friend (G) about the incident. Only G corroborated that Applicant had informed him of the incident on the day it had occurred, and he had encouraged her to report it. (Tr. 132-139; AE AN, AE AR) Applicant returned to the office the following Monday and learned that her supervisor (R) would be absent later in the week. Concerned about further interactions with H, Applicant decided to lie about attending the off-site training during R’s absence. She falsified and certified her timecard, stating that she had attended a two-day training off-site during R’s absence. When confronted about her absence, Applicant lied to R and to a Navy officer about attending the training. When questioned about the training, Applicant even relayed some of the assumed subject-matter content of the training to her supervisor to convince R that she had attended the training. (Tr. 133-144, 152-158, 215; AE AR) Later, the roster of the training was reviewed, and Applicant’s absence from the training was discovered. When again confronted, she admitted that she had not attended the training. She was suspended from her employment, placed on administrative leave, and escorted off base in mid-July 2019. Her Common Access Card (CAC), government laptop, and government cell phone were confiscated at that time. She testified that she understood that her physical access to the office space was suspended at that time but not her clearance. (Tr. 157-158, 178-180) At the hearing, she was confronted about why she falsified her timecard when she had ample leave: 5

I didn’t – I didn’t believe that asking for time off or telling them that I was absolutely sick to be in the office with somebody who verbally, sexually assaulted me the week before, they would understand. [Supervisor] was out of the office at the time. This was 2019 when this happened and this is a bit of an emotional thing for me because it just flashes back. (Tr. 132) She explained that she “spiraled” after the incident with H and shut down. She did not report the incident to human resources, and she claimed that none of the sexual harassment incidents she had reported to her supervisors, K and R, had ever been investigated. She claimed that she reported incidents multiple times to the Navy’s sexual harassment office for over three years prior to her removal; however, there is no evidence to corroborate this claim. She also claimed to have attended some mental health counseling; however, it is unclear if the counseling was related to her divorce, grief, or the workplace incidents. Her rotational assignment from summer 2018 to February 2019 was not the product of any sexual harassment allegation or investigation. She did not seek counseling through the Navy following the June 2019 incident involving H. (Tr. 145-151) Applicant testified that she had “been physically and sexually assaulted throughout her life.” (Tr. 137) She did not provide any further information, either through testimony or documentary evidence, about the circumstances or timeframe of these incidents. Although she mentioned H having kissed her hand during her security interviews, she could not explain why she did not discuss the triggering incident in any of her security questionnaires. (Tr. 152) SOR ¶ 1.h. On July 12, 2019, Applicant was placed on administrative leave by her supervisor. On July 24, 2019, Applicant was sent a Notice of Decision to Suspend Access to Classified Information due to personal conduct issues. This Notice of Decision referenced a July 12, 2019, letter of intent previously sent to Applicant, to which she responded on July 22, 2019. In her July 22, 2019, response, Applicant “acknowledged responsibility for [her] actions in the adjudicative areas of Personal Conduct, Use of Information Technology, and Criminal conduct, and admitted that [her] judgment was less than appropriate.” (GE 8) The Navy correspondence directed Applicant to sign an acknowledgement of her access suspension. (GE 8-9) SOR ¶ 1.l. On her February 2022 e-QIP, under Section 25 – Investigations and Clearance Record, Applicant answered “NO” to the query, “Have you EVER had a security clearance eligibility/access authorization denied, suspended, or revoked? During her August 2022 security interview, Applicant stated that she had been unaware of the status of her security clearance at the time she separated from her Navy employment. In her Answer, she provided a verbatim response as she had for SOR ¶ 1.j. (the alleged falsification of Section 25 on the 2023 e-QIP). She denied any intent to falsify her response on the e-QIP. (GE 2 at 51; Answer) SOR ¶ 1.j. On her February 2023 e-QIP, under Section 25 – Investigations and Clearance Record, Applicant answered “NO” to the query, “Have you EVER had a security clearance eligibility/access authorization denied, suspended, or revoked?” When 6

confronted about her unlisted access suspension by the OPM investigator during her March 23, 2023 security interview, Applicant responded that she had discussed the incident during a previous investigation and had not updated her February 2023 e-QIP. She referenced a 2021 security interview; however, there is no evidence in the case file of a 2021 security clearance application or security interview. (GE 4 at 4) In her Answer, Applicant stated that she “erroneously” denied that her clearance was suspended because she had believed that her Navy employment had been suspended but not her access to classified information. She referenced negotiations between her attorney and the Department of the Navy as related to her December 2019 employment termination; however, she provided no documentary evidence to corroborate her misunderstanding of her suspended access to classified information. (Answer) At the hearing, Applicant admitted that she likely received GE 8, the notice of her clearance suspension, in July 2019. She acknowledged that she had sent responses to the Navy about its intent to suspend her clearance and that she did not mention the sexual harassment incidents in her responses. She explained, “I was a victim, not a position I like to be in, and was ashamed for me being victimized.” (Tr. 159-162) SOR ¶ 1.g. On September 16, 2019, Applicant was sent a Notice of Proposed Removal from her Federal employment, which she believes she received. A Notice of Personnel Action, dated September 27, 2019, noted she was suspended indefinitely due to “loss of security access,” and this Notice was forwarded to her home address. On or about October 7, 2019, Applicant responded to the proposed removal. On November 25, 2019, the Department of Navy deciding official issued a Notice of Decision to Remove (Removal Letter) “for disrespectful conduct, failure to follow instructions, lack of candor, conduct unbecoming a Federal employee, and unauthorized absence.” The deciding official concluded that the charges were supported by a preponderance of evidence. The Removal Letter explicitly referenced her July 24, 2019 suspension of access to classified information. (GE 9 at 1, GE 10, GE 11; Tr. 177) Describing the offenses established against Applicant, the deciding official stated: I find your misconduct was serious and intentional. I find that you demonstrated disrespectful conduct in your interaction with your first-line supervisor. I find that your misconduct was for personal gain when you had several instances of unauthorized absence and exhibited conduct unbecoming a Federal employee when you marked your timecard improperly. You were intentionally absent from work for two full days and, when asked about that time, you exhibited a lack of candor by stating that you had attended a pre-approved training, and provided fabricated emails to try to cover up your absences. I find that you admitted to the misconduct described in many of the charges and specifications. Your actions directly impacted the working relationship between you and your supervisor. I find this to be an aggravating factor. 7

Additionally, while not considering the following information for the penalty of removal, I note that your actions were so serious that it resulted in the suspension of your security clearance, i.e., your access to classified materials and to [Navy] facilities were suspended, by reference (i), while the Department of Defense Central Adjudication Facility (DoDCAF) determines whether you are suitable to perform the duties of your position. You were subsequently placed on administrative leave by reference (g) and indefinitely suspended by reference (h). (GE 9 at 2) The Removal Letter cited numerous instances of unauthorized absence and a March 2019 Letter of Requirement addressing attendance issues and outlining the proper procedures for requesting leave. The Removal Letter stated, “You were also counseled on several occasions regarding your attendance and other conduct concerns.” (GE 9 at 3) The Removal Letter referenced continuing time-and-attendance issues in May and June 2019, notwithstanding the Letter of Requirement, and that Applicant had “exhibited several repeated instances of serious misconduct and poor judgment.” (GE 9 at 4) Applicant’s removal was effective on December 4, 2019, and the Removal Letter noted an appeal process. There is no documentary evidence that Applicant appealed her removal from Federal service. (GE 9 at 3-4) SOR ¶ 1.m. On her

February 2022 e-QIP, under Section 13A – Employment Activities, Applicant reported that her rea

n for leaving her position with the Department of the Navy was “Left by mutual agreement following charges or allegations of misconduct.” She ex

plained: Following multiple reports to supervisors of sexual harassment from other employees and most recently a senior official, I was accused of not showing up to work and accused of falsifying a time card [sic]. I tried to resolve the situation but agreed to leave as there were no alternate work location options available at the time. I had been reporting the sexual harassment over a course of several years. (GE 2 at 24) During her August 2022 OPM Interview, Applicant reported that she left by mutual agreement due to multiple reports (initiated by Applicant) of sexual harassment by other employees and senior officials, accusations of not showing up for work, and falsifying timecards. She explained that, following her 2009 marital separation, she often took leave for medical, legal, and personal matters. She identified an intern and a co-worker (H) who made sexual comments to her and that H had kissed her hand. She reported both incidents to her supervisor and the human resources department. Although she was granted a temporary duty change (from about summer 2018 through February 2019), she returned to the original workplace thereafter. She admitted falsifying her timecard and falsely claiming to be attending a two-day training. She did not work those two days and was aware that her conduct was prohibited. She explained that she had missed work to avoid the co-worker who had made inappropriate comments and had kissed her hand. (GE 4 at 15-16) 8

During the August 2022 interview, when confronted by the OPM investigator about being terminated for cause, Applicant claimed that she did not believe she was terminated but rather escorted out and placed on administrative leave. She admitted that she was later separated from Federal service. She never paid back the U.S. Government for the two days she falsely claimed to have worked. During the OPM Interview, she explained that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); however, there is no corroborating evidence of a diagnosis by a qualified medical professional. She denied any aw

eness that her clearance had been suspended in 2019 and averred that her supervisors had forbidden her from speaking with the human resources department. (GE 4 at 16) SOR ¶ 1.k. On her February 2023 e-QIP, under Section 13A – Employment Activities, Applicant reported her Navy civilian employment. Her “Reason for Leaving” and explanation mirror those in her February 2022 e-QIP verbatim. The only difference in her 2023 e-QIP is that she affirmatively answered that she had received a reprimand in May 2017 for not following proper procedures for leave requests. (GE 1 at 28) During the hearing, Applicant recalled being separated from Federal service, and she hired an attorney in hopes of navigating a path to remain in Federal employment. She was unsure whether she hired the attorney before or after her removal. She was aware that she had been placed on administrative leave from July to December 2019; however, she did not recall receiving correspondence about her suspension from employment. She understood, upon receipt of the Removal Letter, that she was no longer employed by the Navy. She referenced a negotiation letter, which her attorney had prepared in pursuit of her retention of Federal employment; however, she acknowledged that the letter was never signed or finalized with the Navy. Her reliance upon this purported letter is the basis for her responses under Section 13A on her February 2022 and February 2023 e-QIPs. There is no record

ustody proceedings, an attorney was assigned to represent the interests of the children. He noted, in a November 2016 email, a recent incident involving the children’s mistreatment of Applicant. He stated, “I leave the parties with this thought – If the boys are willing to act in this manner towards their own Mother, then I shudder to think to what extent are they eventually will be willing to go with other people with whom they don’t know, or don’t respect.” (AE AF) SOR ¶¶ 1.i., 1.q., and 1.r. In February 2015, Applicant was involved in a physical altercation with two of her minor children. During her August 2022 OPM interview, she explained that one of her children had stolen money from her dresser. Her 13-year-old and 11-year-old sons then attacked her. When law enforcement officers arrived, the two boys claimed that Applicant had abused them, and she was charged with assault. Court records establish she was charged with (1) assault – second degree, a misdemeanor; and (2) child abuse – second degree, a felony. She was arrested, taken to a detention center, and attended at least one court hearing. She was aware, in 2015, that one of the charges was a felony. The charges against Applicant were dismissed in about August 2015. (GE 1 at 47, GE 4 at 26, GE 12; Tr. 184-187, 194) On her January 2018 e-QIP, Under Section 22 – Police Record, Applicant reported that she had been charged with assault in February 2015 and that she had been the victim of an assault by her minor children. Under the field for whether the charge was a felony or misdemeanor, she listed “Other.” Applicant answered “NO” to the query, “Have you EVER been charged with any felony offense?” (GE 3) 3

On May 18, 2018, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator on behalf of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). During the interview, she described the February 2015 altercation with her two sons. She admitted having been arrested and charged; however, she did not list the charges or whether they were misdemeanors or felonies. She explained that her charges had been expunged in early 2018. (GE 4 at 26) On her February 2022 e-QIP, under Section 22 – Police Record, Applicant denied any criminal charges in the previous seven years and denied having ever been charged with a felony offense. (GE 2 at 45) On August 31, 2022, Applicant was interviewed by a different OPM investigator. During the interview, Applicant disclosed incidents involving her children in 2012 and 2018; however, she did not discuss the 2015 felony charge. (GE 4 at 18-21) On her February 2023 e-QIP, under Section 22 – Police Record, Applicant reported her J

y 2010 and February 2015 charges. Her responses and descriptions mirrored verbatim those in her January 2018 e-QIP under Section 22. She denied ever having been charged with a felony offense. (GE 1 at 46-49) During the March 2023 OPM interview, Applicant admitted that she had been charged with felony child abuse and assault in March 2015. She explained that she had discussed the charges during a previous investigation and had not updated Section 22 of her February 2022 e-QIP. (GE 2, GE 4 at 4) At the hearing, Applicant acknowledged that she had disclosed her arrests on her 2018 e-QIP but not on her 2022 e-QIP. She explained that she probably deleted this information, on the pre-populated 2022 e-QIP, because she had believed the charge was expunged as of 2019. After she had completed the 2022 e-QIP, she learned that the 2015 charges had not been expunged. (Tr. 189-190) Removal from Federal Service and Clearance Suspension From January 1994 to December 2019, Applicant was employed in various civilian positions with the Department of the Navy, most recently as a program manager (GS-14 equivalent). In April 1994, she was granted a secret clearance, and her clearance remained active until July 2019. (GE 1 at 27, 53-55) Several SOR allegations are based upon Applicant’s misconduct, which triggered the suspension of her clearance and then her removal from Federal service. Additional SOR allegations then involve Applicant’s descriptions of her clearance and separation on her e-QIPs. At the hearing, Applicant discussed her Navy civilian employment in detail. For the last several years of her Navy employment, her supervisor was K. After K retired in April 2019, R served as Applicant’s supervisor. Applicant testified that her requests for sick leave and annual leave were repeatedly denied by K and R and that she was informed 4

she was denied leave for not following protocols. Applicant denied receiving an official written reprimand for violating leave protocols. She explained that she was listed as “absent without leave” or AWOL “numerous times” despite requesting leave. “There were multiple instances [K] would put me as AWOL, even though I had ample leave.” She received unpaid leave during these instances despite having annual leave and sick leave available. She claimed that she had an unhealthy work environment and had been targeted by K and R. (Tr. 130, 132, 211-213; AE AR) At the hearing, Applicant explained that a triggering event resulted in her decision to avoid the office space, falsify her timecard, and lie to multiple supervisors about attending a training. A week prior to her falsified timecard, Applicant had an unpleasant interaction with H, a supervisor from another department with whom she interacted in the workplace. According to Applicant, H walked up behind Applicant and whispered something in her ear. Both his proximity and the content of his comment upset Applicant, and they were alone in the office at the time. At the hearing, she described it as being “verbally, sexually assaulted” by H. Applicant reported the incident to her supervisor R, who had recently taken over Applicant’s department. Applicant testified that R laughed, dismissed H’s comment and behavior, and advised Applicant not to report the incident to the human resources department. She further testified that H had previously kissed the back of her hand and had made lewd comments to and about Applicant for the previous two years. Applicant did not report the interaction to any other co-workers at that time, but she did inform her mother and a friend (G) about the incident. Only G corroborated that Applicant had informed him of the incident on the day it had occurred, and he had encouraged her to report it. (Tr. 132-139; AE AN, AE AR) Applicant returned to the office the following Monday and learned that her supervisor (R) would be absent later in the week. Concerned about further interactions with H, Applicant decided to lie about attending the off-site training during R’s absence. She falsified and certified her timecard, stating that she had attended a two-day training off-site during R’s absence. When confronted about her absence, Applicant lied to R and to a Navy officer about attending the training. When questioned about the training, Applicant even relayed some of the assumed subject-matter content of the training to her supervisor to convince R that she had attended the training. (Tr. 133-144, 152-158, 215; AE AR) Later, the roster of the training was reviewed, and Applicant’s absence from the training was discovered. When again confronted, she admitted that she had not attended the training. She was suspended from her employment, placed on administrative leave, and escorted off base in mid-July 2019. Her Common Access Card (CAC), government laptop, and government cell phone were confiscated at that time. She testified that she understood that her physical access to the office space was suspended at that time but not her clearance. (Tr. 157-158, 178-180) At the hearing, she was confronted about why she falsified her timecard when she had ample leave: 5

I didn’t – I didn’t believe that asking for time off or telling them that I was absolutely sick to be in the office with somebody who verbally, sexually assaulted me the week before, they would understand. [Supervisor] was out of the office at the time. This was 2019 when this happened and this is a bit of an emotional thing for me because it just flashes back. (Tr. 132) She explained that she “spiraled” after the incident with H and shut down. She did not report the incident to human resources, and she claimed that none of the sexual harassment incidents she had reported to her supervisors, K and R, had ever been investigated. She claimed that she reported incidents multiple times to the Navy’s sexual harassment office for over three years prior to her removal; however, there is no evidence to corroborate this claim. She also claimed to have attended some mental health counseling; however, it is unclear if the counseling was related to her divorce, grief, or the workplace incidents. Her rotational assignment from summer 2018 to February 2019 was not the product of any sexual harassment allegation or investigation. She did not seek counseling through the Navy following the June 2019 incident involving H. (Tr. 145-151) Applicant testified that she had “been physically and sexually assaulted throughout her life.” (Tr. 137) She did not provide any further information, either through testimony or documentary evidence, about the circumstances or timeframe of these incidents. Although she mentioned H having kissed her hand during her security interviews, she could not explain why she did not discuss the triggering incident in any of her security questionnaires. (Tr. 152) SOR ¶ 1.h. On July 12, 2019, Applicant was placed on administrative leave by her supervisor. On July 24, 2019, Applicant was sent a Notice of Decision to Suspend Access to Classified Information due to personal conduct issues. This Notice of Decision referenced a July 12, 2019, letter of intent previously sent to Applicant, to which she responded on July 22, 2019. In her July 22, 2019, response, Applicant “acknowledged responsibility for [her] actions in the adjudicative areas of Personal Conduct, Use of Information Technology, and Criminal conduct, and admitted that [her] judgment was less than appropriate.” (GE 8) The Navy correspondence directed Applicant to sign an acknowledgement of her access suspension. (GE 8-9) SOR ¶ 1.l. On her February 2022 e-QIP, under Section 25 – Investigations and Clearance Record, Applicant answered “NO” to the query, “Have you EVER had a security clearance eligibility/access authorization denied, suspended, or revoked? During her August 2022 security interview, Applicant stated that she had been unaware of the status of her security clearance at the time she separated from her Navy employment. In her Answer, she provided a verbatim response as she had for SOR ¶ 1.j. (the alleged falsification of Section 25 on the 2023 e-QIP). She denied any intent to falsify her response on the e-QIP. (GE 2 at 51; Answer) SOR ¶ 1.j. On her February 2023 e-QIP, under Section 25 – Investigations and Clearance Record, Applicant answered “NO” to the query, “Have you EVER had a security clearance eligibility/access authorization denied, suspended, or revoked?” When 6

confronted about her unlisted access suspension by the OPM investigator during her March 23, 2023 security interview, Applicant responded that she had discussed the incident during a previous investigation and had not updated her February 2023 e-QIP. She referenced a 2021 security interview; however, there is no evidence in the case file of a 2021 security clearance application or security interview. (GE 4 at 4) In her Answer, Applicant stated that she “erroneously” denied that her clearance was suspended because she had believed that her Navy employment had been suspended but not her access to classified information. She referenced negotiations between her attorney and the Department of the Navy as related to her December 2019 employment termination; however, she provided no documentary evidence to corroborate her misunderstanding of her suspended access to classified information. (Answer) At the hearing, Applicant admitted that she likely received GE 8, the notice of her clearance suspension, in July 2019. She acknowledged that she had sent responses to the Navy about its intent to suspend her clearance and that she did not mention the sexual harassment incidents in her responses. She explained, “I was a victim, not a position I like to be in, and was ashamed for me being victimized.” (Tr. 159-162) SOR ¶ 1.g. On September 16, 2019, Applicant was sent a Notice of Proposed Removal from her Federal employment, which she believes she received. A Notice of Personnel Action, dated September 27, 2019, noted she was suspended indefinitely due to “loss of security access,” and this Notice was forwarded to her home address. On or about October 7, 2019, Applicant responded to the proposed removal. On November 25, 2019, the Department of Navy deciding official issued a Notice of Decision to Remove (Removal Letter) “for disrespectful conduct, failure to follow instructions, lack of candor, conduct unbecoming a Federal employee, and unauthorized absence.” The deciding official concluded that the charges were supported by a preponderance of evidence. The Removal Letter explicitly referenced her July 24, 2019 suspension of access to classified information. (GE 9 at 1, GE 10, GE 11; Tr. 177) Describing the offenses established against Applicant, the deciding official stated: I find your misconduct was serious and intentional. I find that you demonstrated disrespectful conduct in your interaction with your first-line supervisor. I find that your misconduct was for personal gain when you had several instances of unauthorized absence and exhibited conduct unbecoming a Federal employee when you marked your timecard improperly. You were intentionally absent from work for two full days and, when asked about that time, you exhibited a lack of candor by stating that you had attended a pre-approved training, and provided fabricated emails to try to cover up your absences. I find that you admitted to the misconduct described in many of the charges and specifications. Your actions directly impacted the working relationship between you and your supervisor. I find this to be an aggravating factor. 7

Additionally, while not considering the following information for the penalty of removal, I note that your actions were so serious that it resulted in the suspension of your security clearance, i.e., your access to classified materials and to [Navy] facilities were suspended, by reference (i), while the Department of Defense Central Adjudication Facility (DoDCAF) determines whether you are suitable to perform the duties of your position. You were subsequently placed on administrative leave by reference (g) and indefinitely suspended by reference (h). (GE 9 at 2) The Removal Letter cited numerous instances of unauthorized absence and a March 2019 Letter of Requirement addressing attendance issues and outlining the proper procedures for requesting leave. The Removal Letter stated, “You were also counseled on several occasions regarding your attendance and other conduct concerns.” (GE 9 at 3) The Removal Letter referenced continuing time-and-attendance issues in May and June 2019, notwithstanding the Letter of Requirement, and that Applicant had “exhibited several repeated instances of serious misconduct and poor judgment.” (GE 9 at 4) Applicant’s removal was effective on December 4, 2019, and the Removal Letter noted an appeal process. There is no documentary evidence that Applicant appealed her removal from Federal service. (GE 9 at 3-4) SOR ¶ 1.m. On her

February 2022 e-QIP, under Section 13A – Employment Activities, Applicant reported that her reason for leaving her position with the Department of the Navy was “Left by mutual agreement following charges or allegations of misconduct.” She ex

plained: Following multiple reports to supervisors of sexual harassment from other employees and most recently a senior official, I was accused of not showing up to work and accused of falsifying a time card [sic]. I tried to resolve the situation but agreed to leave as there were no alternate work location options available at the time. I had been reporting the sexual harassment over a course of several years. (GE 2 at 24) During her August 2022 OPM Interview, Applicant reported that she left by mutual agreement due to multiple reports (initiated by Applicant) of sexual harassment by other employees and senior officials, accusations of not showing up for work, and falsifying timecards. She explained that, following her 2009 marital separation, she often took leave for medical, legal, and personal matters. She identified an intern and a co-worker (H) who made sexual comments to her and that H had kissed her hand. She reported both incidents to her supervisor and the human resources department. Although she was granted a temporary duty change (from about summer 2018 through February 2019), she returned to the original workplace thereafter. She admitted falsifying her timecard and falsely claiming to be attending a two-day training. She did not work those two days and was aware that her conduct was prohibited. She explained that she had missed work to avoid the co-worker who had made inappropriate comments and had kissed her hand. (GE 4 at 15-16) 8

During the August 2022 interview, when confronted by the OPM investigator about being terminated for cause, Applicant claimed that she did not believe she was terminated but rather escorted out and placed on administrative leave. She admitted that she was later separated from Federal service. She never paid back the U.S. Government for the two days she falsely claimed to have worked. During the OPM Interview, she explained that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); however, there is no corroborating evidence of a diagnosis by a qualified medical professional. She denied any aw

y 2010 and February 2015 charges. Her responses and descriptions mirrored verbatim those in her January 2018 e-QIP under Section 22. She denied ever having been charged with a felony offense. (GE 1 at 46-49) During the March 2023 OPM interview, Applicant admitted that she had been charged with felony child abuse and assault in March 2015. She explained that she had discussed the charges during a previous investigation and had not updated Section 22 of her February 2022 e-QIP. (GE 2, GE 4 at 4) At the hearing, Applicant acknowledged that she had disclosed her arrests on her 2018 e-QIP but not on her 2022 e-QIP. She explained that she probably deleted this information, on the pre-populated 2022 e-QIP, because she had believed the charge was expunged as of 2019. After she had completed the 2022 e-QIP, she learned that the 2015 charges had not been expunged. (Tr. 189-190) Removal from Federal Service and Clearance Suspension From January 1994 to December 2019, Applicant was employed in various civilian positions with the Department of the Navy, most recently as a program manager (GS-14 equivalent). In April 1994, she was granted a secret clearance, and her clearance remained active until July 2019. (GE 1 at 27, 53-55) Several SOR allegations are based upon Applicant’s misconduct, which triggered the suspension of her clearance and then her removal from Federal service. Additional SOR allegations then involve Applicant’s descriptions of her clearance and separation on her e-QIPs. At the hearing, Applicant discussed her Navy civilian employment in detail. For the last several years of her Navy employment, her supervisor was K. After K retired in April 2019, R served as Applicant’s supervisor. Applicant testified that her requests for sick leave and annual leave were repeatedly denied by K and R and that she was informed 4

she was denied leave for not following protocols. Applicant denied receiving an official written reprimand for violating leave protocols. She explained that she was listed as “absent without leave” or AWOL “numerous times” despite requesting leave. “There were multiple instances [K] would put me as AWOL, even though I had ample leave.” She received unpaid leave during these instances despite having annual leave and sick leave available. She claimed that she had an unhealthy work environment and had been targeted by K and R. (Tr. 130, 132, 211-213; AE AR) At the hearing, Applicant explained that a triggering event resulted in her decision to avoid the office space, falsify her timecard, and lie to multiple supervisors about attending a training. A week prior to her falsified timecard, Applicant had an unpleasant interaction with H, a supervisor from another department with whom she interacted in the workplace. According to Applicant, H walked up behind Applicant and whispered something in her ear. Both his proximity and the content of his comment upset Applicant, and they were alone in the office at the time. At the hearing, she described it as being “verbally, sexually assaulted” by H. Applicant reported the incident to her supervisor R, who had recently taken over Applicant’s department. Applicant testified that R laughed, dismissed H’s comment and behavior, and advised Applicant not to report the incident to the human resources department. She further testified that H had previously kissed the back of her hand and had made lewd comments to and about Applicant for the previous two years. Applicant did not report the interaction to any other co-workers at that time, but she did inform her mother and a friend (G) about the incident. Only G corroborated that Applicant had informed him of the incident on the day it had occurred, and he had encouraged her to report it. (Tr. 132-139; AE AN, AE AR) Applicant returned to the office the following Monday and learned that her supervisor (R) would be absent later in the week. Concerned about further interactions with H, Applicant decided to lie about attending the off-site training during R’s absence. She falsified and certified her timecard, stating that she had attended a two-day training off-site during R’s absence. When confronted about her absence, Applicant lied to R and to a Navy officer about attending the training. When questioned about the training, Applicant even relayed some of the assumed subject-matter content of the training to her supervisor to convince R that she had attended the training. (Tr. 133-144, 152-158, 215; AE AR) Later, the roster of the training was reviewed, and Applicant’s absence from the training was discovered. When again confronted, she admitted that she had not attended the training. She was suspended from her employment, placed on administrative leave, and escorted off base in mid-July 2019. Her Common Access Card (CAC), government laptop, and government cell phone were confiscated at that time. She testified that she understood that her physical access to the office space was suspended at that time but not her clearance. (Tr. 157-158, 178-180) At the hearing, she was confronted about why she falsified her timecard when she had ample leave: 5

I didn’t – I didn’t believe that asking for time off or telling them that I was absolutely sick to be in the office with somebody who verbally, sexually assaulted me the week before, they would understand. [Supervisor] was out of the office at the time. This was 2019 when this happened and this is a bit of an emotional thing for me because it just flashes back. (Tr. 132) She explained that she “spiraled” after the incident with H and shut down. She did not report the incident to human resources, and she claimed that none of the sexual harassment incidents she had reported to her supervisors, K and R, had ever been investigated. She claimed that she reported incidents multiple times to the Navy’s sexual harassment office for over three years prior to her removal; however, there is no evidence to corroborate this claim. She also claimed to have attended some mental health counseling; however, it is unclear if the counseling was related to her divorce, grief, or the workplace incidents. Her rotational assignment from summer 2018 to February 2019 was not the product of any sexual harassment allegation or investigation. She did not seek counseling through the Navy following the June 2019 incident involving H. (Tr. 145-151) Applicant testified that she had “been physically and sexually assaulted throughout her life.” (Tr. 137) She did not provide any further information, either through testimony or documentary evidence, about the circumstances or timeframe of these incidents. Although she mentioned H having kissed her hand during her security interviews, she could not explain why she did not discuss the triggering incident in any of her security questionnaires. (Tr. 152) SOR ¶ 1.h. On July 12, 2019, Applicant was placed on administrative leave by her supervisor. On July 24, 2019, Applicant was sent a Notice of Decision to Suspend Access to Classified Information due to personal conduct issues. This Notice of Decision referenced a July 12, 2019, letter of intent previously sent to Applicant, to which she responded on July 22, 2019. In her July 22, 2019, response, Applicant “acknowledged responsibility for [her] actions in the adjudicative areas of Personal Conduct, Use of Information Technology, and Criminal conduct, and admitted that [her] judgment was less than appropriate.” (GE 8) The Navy correspondence directed Applicant to sign an acknowledgement of her access suspension. (GE 8-9) SOR ¶ 1.l. On her February 2022 e-QIP, under Section 25 – Investigations and Clearance Record, Applicant answered “NO” to the query, “Have you EVER had a security clearance eligibility/access authorization denied, suspended, or revoked? During her August 2022 security interview, Applicant stated that she had been unaware of the status of her security clearance at the time she separated from her Navy employment. In her Answer, she provided a verbatim response as she had for SOR ¶ 1.j. (the alleged falsification of Section 25 on the 2023 e-QIP). She denied any intent to falsify her response on the e-QIP. (GE 2 at 51; Answer) SOR ¶ 1.j. On her February 2023 e-QIP, under Section 25 – Investigations and Clearance Record, Applicant answered “NO” to the query, “Have you EVER had a security clearance eligibility/access authorization denied, suspended, or revoked?” When 6

confronted about her unlisted access suspension by the OPM investigator during her March 23, 2023 security interview, Applicant responded that she had discussed the incident during a previous investigation and had not updated her February 2023 e-QIP. She referenced a 2021 security interview; however, there is no evidence in the case file of a 2021 security clearance application or security interview. (GE 4 at 4) In her Answer, Applicant stated that she “erroneously” denied that her clearance was suspended because she had believed that her Navy employment had been suspended but not her access to classified information. She referenced negotiations between her attorney and the Department of the Navy as related to her December 2019 employment termination; however, she provided no documentary evidence to corroborate her misunderstanding of her suspended access to classified information. (Answer) At the hearing, Applicant admitted that she likely received GE 8, the notice of her clearance suspension, in July 2019. She acknowledged that she had sent responses to the Navy about its intent to suspend her clearance and that she did not mention the sexual harassment incidents in her responses. She explained, “I was a victim, not a position I like to be in, and was ashamed for me being victimized.” (Tr. 159-162) SOR ¶ 1.g. On September 16, 2019, Applicant was sent a Notice of Proposed Removal from her Federal employment, which she believes she received. A Notice of Personnel Action, dated September 27, 2019, noted she was suspended indefinitely due to “loss of security access,” and this Notice was forwarded to her home address. On or about October 7, 2019, Applicant responded to the proposed removal. On November 25, 2019, the Department of Navy deciding official issued a Notice of Decision to Remove (Removal Letter) “for disrespectful conduct, failure to follow instructions, lack of candor, conduct unbecoming a Federal employee, and unauthorized absence.” The deciding official concluded that the charges were supported by a preponderance of evidence. The Removal Letter explicitly referenced her July 24, 2019 suspension of access to classified information. (GE 9 at 1, GE 10, GE 11; Tr. 177) Describing the offenses established against Applicant, the deciding official stated: I find your misconduct was serious and intentional. I find that you demonstrated disrespectful conduct in your interaction with your first-line supervisor. I find that your misconduct was for personal gain when you had several instances of unauthorized absence and exhibited conduct unbecoming a Federal employee when you marked your timecard improperly. You were intentionally absent from work for two full days and, when asked about that time, you exhibited a lack of candor by stating that you had attended a pre-approved training, and provided fabricated emails to try to cover up your absences. I find that you admitted to the misconduct described in many of the charges and specifications. Your actions directly impacted the working relationship between you and your supervisor. I find this to be an aggravating factor. 7

Additionally, while not considering the following information for the penalty of removal, I note that your actions were so serious that it resulted in the suspension of your security clearance, i.e., your access to classified materials and to [Navy] facilities were suspended, by reference (i), while the Department of Defens

Central Adjudication Facility (DoDCAF) determines whether you are suitable to perform the duties of your position. You were subsequently placed on administrative leave by reference (g) and indefinitely suspended by reference (h). (GE 9 at 2) The Removal Letter cited numerous instances of unauthorized absence and a March 2019 Letter of Requirement addressing attendance issues and outlining the proper procedures for requesting leave. The Removal Letter stated, “You were also counseled on several occasions regarding your attendance and other conduct concerns.” (GE 9 at 3) The Removal Letter referenced continuing time-and-attendance issues in May and June 2019, notwithstanding the Letter of Requirement, and that Applicant had “exhibited several repeated instances of serious misconduct and poor judgment.” (GE 9 at 4) Applicant’s removal was effective on December 4, 2019, and the Removal Letter noted an appeal process. There is no documentary evidence that Applicant appealed her removal from Federal service. (GE 9 at 3-4) SOR ¶ 1.m. On her

February 2022 e-QIP, under Section 13A – Employment Activities, Applicant reported that her reason for leaving her position with the Department of the Navy was “Left by mutual agreement following charges or allegations of misconduct.” She ex

plained: Following multiple reports to supervisors of sexual harassment from other employees and most recently a senior official, I was accused of not showing up to work and accused of falsifying a time card [sic]. I tried to resolve the situation but agreed to leave as there were no alternate work location options available at the time. I had been reporting the sexual harassment over a course of several years. (GE 2 at 24) During her August 2022 OPM Interview, Applicant reported that she left by mutual agreement due to multiple reports (initiated by Applicant) of sexual harassment by other employees and senior officials, accusations of not showing up for work, and falsifying timecards. She explained that, following her 2009 marital separation, she often took leave for medical, legal, and personal matters. She identified an intern and a co-worker (H) who made sexual comments to her and that H had kissed her hand. She reported both incidents to her supervisor and the human resources department. Although she was granted a temporary duty change (from about summer 2018 through February 2019), she returned to the original workplace thereafter. She admitted falsifying her timecard and falsely claiming to be attending a two-day training. She did not work those two days and was aware that her conduct was prohibited. She explained that she had missed work to avoid the co-worker who had made inappropriate comments and had kissed her hand. (GE 4 at 15-16) 8

During the August 2022 interview, when confronted by the OPM investigator about being terminated for cause, Applicant claimed that she did not believe she was terminated but rather escorted out and placed on administrative leave. She admitted that she was later separated from Federal service. She never paid back the U.S. Government for the two days she falsely claimed to have worked. During the OPM Interview, she explained that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); however, there is no corroborating evidence of a diagnosis by a qualified medical professional. She denied any aw

vidence corroborating her claimed negotiations or any mutual agreement between Applicant and the Navy concerning her separation from employment or the reinstatement of her clearance. She relied on this purported agreement for her belief that her clearance had been reinstated. (Tr. 163-175; GE 9-10) Applicant recalled filing appeals related to her removal and clearance suspension; however, she could not identify any specific entity to which she appealed these decisions nor provide any evidence to corroborate her claimed appeals. She testified that she prepared and filed the appeals without

gal counsel. She did not recall ever receiving the March 2019 Letter of Requirement or any incidents of time and attendance in May and June 2019. Initially, she also did not recall ever having been placed on a