ISCR Case No. 25-01091

APPEARANCES FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Dylan Thayer, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 10, 2025, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On June 15, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. At hearing, the Government withdrew one of the ten alleged security concerns. Of the nine allegations that remained, the Judge found favorably on two (SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.g) and adversely on seven. The favorable findings are not in issue on appeal, and the facts and circumstances surrounding those two allegations will not be discussed other than to provide context for the issues on appeal. In his mid-thirties, Applicant is twice divorced, with no children. He earned a bachelor’s degree in 2010, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2012, and served on active duty in the U.S. Army from 2012 to 2018 and in the Army Reserve until 2019. He deployed to Afghanistan twice,

served with special forces, received numerous personal, unit, and campaign awards, and was an E-5 upon his honorable discharge. After leaving active duty, Applicant worked for several companies as a linguist and was assigned to posts in various Middle Eastern countries. The gravamen of the SOR is that Applicant was terminated from two of those employments — from Company W in September 2019 and subsequently from Company L/E in July 2021 — and that he failed to report those terminations accurately on four security clearance applications (SCAs) and during two personal subject interviews (PSIs) with background investigators. Pro se at hearing and now represented on appeal, Applicant raises two challenges. First, he argues that the Judge erred in his factual findings and conclusions about the termination from Company W. Second, he contends that the Judge erred in finding that Applicant intentionally falsified his SCAs and PSIs and argues instead that Applicant’s “status as a non-native English speaker meant that he did not understand that his employment with [Company L/E and Company W] had been terminated.” Appeal Brief at 9. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm the Judge’s decision. Termination from Company W Employment in 2019 We turn first to Applicant’s argument regarding his termination from Company W. The SOR alleged that, in about September 2019, Applicant was terminated from his employment with Company W for concerns that included: “unauthorized travel off-post, using a personal communication device to contact [a host country] Liaison Officer, contacting [a host country] Liaison Officer after being instructed not to do so, and proposing a kick-back arrangement to [a host country] Liaison Officer.” SOR ¶ 1.b. During the adjudicative process, Applicant has variously denied both 1) that he committed the underlying conduct and 2) that he was fired. At issue on appeal is the Judge’s finding that Applicant committed the underlying misconduct, as Applicant challenges whether the evidence supports that conclusion. When a judge’s findings are challenged, we examine those findings to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence, i.e., “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. The evidence supporting this contested allegation consisted of Government Exhibit (GE) 8, which included a three-page contemporaneous memorandum from an allied defense force (ADF) officer that detailed the following chain of events: as an employee of Company W, Applicant arrived at his post in a Middle Eastern country in August 2019 to work for the ADF as a linguist in support of meetings and other communications between ADF liaison officers and their host country counterparts; in late September 2019, Applicant requested permission to leave the secured compound to which he was assigned, and permission was denied pursuant to policy; the following day, ADF received a report that Applicant contacted a host country liaison officer, met him outside of the ADF compound, gained access to a host country military compound, and then proposed a kickback plan to the liaison officer involving misuse of the ADF’s funds; upon receipt of the report, an ADF officer directed Applicant not to contact the host country liaison officer and went to conduct an interview with the officer; and, while ADF officers were interviewing the 2

liaison officer, Applicant repeatedly called and texted the officer, both from his work phone and his personal phone, in violation both of the no-contact order and an ADF policy not to use a personal phone for communications with host country officers. GE 8 at 1–2. The ADF memorandum specifically highlighted the “very serious Counter Intelligence concern” raised by Applicant’s use of his own phone to contact a host country’s liaison officer. Id. at 2. The ADF memorandum noted that the ADF was awaiting security footage of their secured compound’s gates but had reviewed security camera footage from the host country’s military compound that confirmed Applicant’s “breaches” of that compound. Id. In conclusion, the ADF memorandum noted that the security camera footage, coupled with Applicant’s “repeated attempts to contact the [host country liaison officer] during our meeting despite our specific instruction not to” necessitated Applicant’s removal from their team and precluded him from working with any other ADF element. Id. In the wake of this report from the ADF client, Company W gave Applicant an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, in which he denied the report and made counter-accusations against the liaison officer. Id. at 7–8. Company W terminated Applicant, and the Facility Security Officer filed an incident report. Id. at 4. In his decision, the Judge cataloged and considered Applicant’s multiple denials of this entire episode, to include in his initial rebuttal, in his answer to the SOR, and at hearing. The Judge ultimately concluded, however, that Applicant had “committed the misconduct alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b,” relying upon the ADF memorandum, Company W’s adoption of that investigation, and Appeal Board precedent that “employer investigations and their findings and conclusions deserve deference in our determinations.” Decision at 14 (citation omitted). On appeal, Applicant argues that the Judge “misstated the findings of [Company W].” Appeal Brief at 13. He avers that “an investigation conducted by [Company W] confirmed only that [Applicant] had violated [Company W’s] off post travel policy – not that he had used a personal communication device to contact [a host country] Liaison Officer, contacted [a host country] Liaison Officer after being instructed not to do so, and proposed a kick-back arrangement to [a host country] Liaison officer.” Id. He asserts that while the investigation by Company W “repeated the allegations from their client verbatim . . . only the departure off post was found substantiated by [Company W’s] own investigation.” Id. He argues that the Judge erred in concluding that all the alleged misconduct occurred, as “[t]hese conclusions were not supported by [Company W’s] own investigation.” Id. at 13. This argument utterly misrepresents the evidence. The record establishes that the ADF, the military client of Company W, initiated an investigation immediately upon receipt of a report of serious misconduct by Applicant and that their investigation not only corroborated critical aspects of the report from the host country liaison officer but also substantiated additional infractions, resulting in Applicant’s expulsion from the ADF team. GE 8 at 1–3. Contrary to Applicant’s argument, the evidence does not indicate that Company W conducted its own investigation but instead confirms that Company W adopted the client’s in-country, on-site investigation of the incident, summarized it in an incident report, and updated it with information that the ADF security camera footage confirmed that Applicant left the ADF compound. Id. at 4. As the Judge noted, we have long held that employer’s investigations should receive deference, and this record reinforces that conviction. The Judge’s finding that Applicant committed the alleged misconduct is amply 3

supported by substantial evidence from the client’s investigation and Company W’s incident report. Applicant’s argument on the issue is entirely without merit. Falsifications and Applicant’s Mens Rea The remaining six allegations of the SOR alleged that Applicant falsified four SCAs and two PSIs in that he failed to accurately report this 2019 termination from Company W and a 2021 termination from Company L/E. SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.d, 1.f, 1.h–l.j. Instead of disclosing that he was fired from those two employments, Applicant reported variously that his contract ended, that he was released, or that the client no longer needed as many linguists. He specifically denied being fired, disciplined, or reprimanded. On appeal, Applicant’s counsel argues that Applicant’s statements were not deliberately false because, “as a non-native English speaker, [Applicant] did not understand the distinction between an employment which is terminated by the end of a contract and an employment which is terminated by firing” and that he therefore lacked the requisite mens rea to establish the falsifications. Appeal Brief at 9. Applicant’s counsel correctly highlights that, in falsification cases, it is not enough for the Government to establish that an applicant’s answers were not true. Instead, the judge must analyze an applicant’s intent, based upon a consideration of all record evidence, to determine if answers were deliberately false. Id. Contrary to Applicant’s argument, however, record evidence directly supports the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant deliberately falsified his SCAs and that he was not honest during his interviews. For example, regarding the termination from Company W, the record contains the following email from Applicant to Company W personnel dated August 29, 2019: You guys have fired me and kicked me out of base within hours notice and you guys said that just cuz the [ADF] thinks bad of me that’s enough for you to fire me and Also wants to report a false accusation! I will hire an attorney who will be suing you guys within 3 days and I’ll make sure that your company will be mentioned to the government and what you guys do to translators and how much low and bad you guys treat us, trust me your names will be mentioned and I’ll make sure it goes viral, you guys [have] so many Violations with DOD KAF, first you allow translators to use [host country] citizens to enter [the host country] when they should never use it due to the agreement they signed with you! You guys [have] miss treated me and badly and wants to ruin my career over false and non evidenced info! Let’s play this game guys. I will be contacting the state senator as well. GE 8 at 5 (emphasis added). To state the obvious, Applicant clearly understood in the immediate wake of the incident at Company W that he was indeed fired. Any argument to the contrary is expressly disproved by Applicant’s own email. Similarly, regarding the termination from Company L/E, the record contains an email and letter from the company dated July 6, 2021, which informed Applicant that he was “terminated” from his overseas contract for “failure to perform duties as expected,” and detailed specific issues with Applicant’s work professionalism and failures to follow the chain of command. GE 7 at 2. The letter advised Applicant that his termination was effective immediately, that his work visa was cancelled, and that he had a 30-day period to obtain a new residence permit or leave the country. At hearing, Applicant acknowledged that he received the letter and read it. Transcript at 52–54. 4

The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant deliberately falsified his SCAs and PSIs regarding these two terminations is well-supported by record evidence. The strained argument of counsel on appeal that Applicant did not understand that he was fired from the two employments is without merit. Conclusion Applicant has not established that the Judge’s conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Rather, the Judge examined and weighed the disqualifying and mitigating evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The record is sufficient to support that the Judge’s findings and conclusions are sustainable. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b). Order The decision in ISCR Case No. 25-01091 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Eric H. Borgstrom Eric H. Borgstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 5

FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel

Dylan Thayer, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 10, 2025, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On June 15, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. At hearing, the Government withdrew one of the ten alleged security concerns. Of the nine allegations that remained, the Judge found favorably on two (SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.g) and adversely on seven. The favorable findings are not in issue on appeal, and the facts and circumstances surrounding those two allegations will not be discussed other than to provide context for the issues on appeal. In his mid-thirties, Applicant is twice divorced, with no children. He earned a bachelor’s degree in 2010, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2012, and served on active duty in the U.S. Army from 2012 to 2018 and in the Army Reserve until 2019. He deployed to Afghanistan twice,

served with special forces, received numerous personal, unit, and campaign awards, and was an E-5 upon his honorable discharge. After leaving active duty, Applicant worked for several companies as a linguist and was assigned to posts in various Middle Eastern countries. The gravamen of the SOR is that Applicant was terminated from two of those employments — from Company W in September 2019 and subsequently from Company L/E in July 2021 — and that he failed to report those terminations accurately on four security clearance applications (SCAs) and during two personal subject interviews (PSIs) with background investigators. Pro se at hearing and now represented on appeal, Applicant raises two challenges. First, he argues that the Judge erred in his factual findings and conclusions about the termination from Company W. Second, he contends that the Judge erred in finding that Applicant intentionally falsified his SCAs and PSIs and argues instead that Applicant’s “status as a non-native English speaker meant that he did not understand that his employment with [Company L/E and Company W] had been terminated.” Appeal Brief at 9. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm the Judge’s decision. Termination from Company W Employment in 2019 We turn first to Applicant’s argument regarding his termination from Company W. The SOR alleged that, in about September 2019, Applicant was terminated from his employment with Company W for concerns that included: “unauthorized travel off-post, using a personal communication device to contact [a host country] Liaison Officer, contacting [a host country] Liaison Officer after being instructed not to do so, and proposing a kick-back arrangement to [a host country] Liaison Officer.” SOR ¶ 1.b. During the adjudicative process, Applicant has variously denied both 1) that he committed the underlying conduct and 2) that he was fired. At issue on appeal is the Judge’s finding that Applicant committed the underlying misconduct, as Applicant challenges whether the evidence supports that conclusion. When a judge’s findings are challenged, we examine those findings to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence, i.e., “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. The evidence supporting this contested allegation consisted of Government Exhibit (GE) 8, which included a three-page contemporaneous memorandum from an allied defense force (ADF) officer that detailed the following chain of events: as an employee of Company W, Applicant arrived at his post in a Middle Eastern country in August 2019 to work for the ADF as a linguist in support of meetings and other communications between ADF liaison officers and their host country counterparts; in late September 2019, Applicant requested permission to leave the secured compound to which he was assigned, and permission was denied pursuant to policy; the following day, ADF received a report that Applicant contacted a host country liaison officer, met him outside of the ADF compound, gained access to a host country military compound, and then proposed a kickback plan to the liaison officer involving misuse of the ADF’s funds; upon receipt of the report, an ADF officer directed Applicant not to contact the host country liaison officer and went to conduct an interview with the officer; and, while ADF officers were interviewing the 2

liaison officer, Applicant repeatedly called and texted the officer, both from his work phone and his personal phone, in violation both of the no-contact order and an ADF policy not to use a personal phone for communications with host country officers. GE 8 at 1–2. The ADF memorandum specifically highlighted the “very serious Counter Intelligence concern” raised by Applicant’s use of his own phone to contact a host country’s liaison officer. Id. at 2. The ADF memorandum noted that the ADF was awaiting security footage of their secured compound’s gates but had reviewed security camera footage from the host country’s military compound that confirmed Applicant’s “breaches” of that compound. Id. In conclusion, the ADF memorandum noted that the security camera footage, coupled with Applicant’s “repeated attempts to contact the [host country liaison officer] during our meeting despite our specific instruction not to” necessitated Applicant’s removal from their team and precluded him from working with any other ADF element. Id. In the wake of this report from the ADF client, Company W gave Applicant an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, in which he denied the report and made counter-accusations against the liaison officer. Id. at 7–8. Company W terminated Applicant, and the Facility Security Officer filed an incident report. Id. at 4. In his decision, the Judge cataloged and considered Applicant’s multiple denials of this entire episode, to include in his initial rebuttal, in his answer to the SOR, and at hearing. The Judge ultimately concluded, however, that Applicant had “committed the misconduct alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b,” relying upon the ADF memorandum, Company W’s adoption of that investigation, and Appeal Board precedent that “employer investigations and their findings and conclusions deserve deference in our determinations.” Decision at 14 (citation omitted). On appeal, Applicant argues that the Judge “misstated the findings of [Company W].” Appeal Brief at 13. He avers that “an investigation conducted by [Company W] confirmed only that [Applicant] had violated [Company W’s] off post travel policy – not that he had used a personal communication device to contact [a host country] Liaison Officer, contacted [a host country] Liaison Officer after being instructed not to do so, and proposed a kick-back arrangement to [a host country] Liaison officer.” Id. He asserts that while the investigation by Company W “repeated the allegations from their client verbatim . . . only the departure off post was found substantiated by [Company W’s] own investigation.” Id. He argues that the Judge erred in concluding that all the alleged misconduct occurred, as “[t]hese conclusions were not supported by [Company W’s] own investigation.” Id. at 13. This argument utterly misrepresents the evidence. The record establishes that the ADF, the military client of Company W, initiated an investigation immediately upon receipt of a report of serious misconduct by Applicant and that their investigation not only corroborated critical aspects of the report from the host country liaison officer but also substantiated additional infractions, resulting in Applicant’s expulsion from the ADF team. GE 8 at 1–3. Contrary to Applicant’s argument, the evidence does not indicate that Company W conducted its own investigation but instead confirms that Company W adopted the client’s in-country, on-site investigation of the incident, summarized it in an incident report, and updated it with information that the ADF security camera footage confirmed that Applicant left the ADF compound. Id. at 4. As the Judge noted, we have long held that employer’s investigations should receive deference, and this record reinforces that conviction. The Judge’s finding that Applicant committed the alleged misconduct is amply 3

supported by substantial evidence from the client’s investigation and Company W’s incident report. Applicant’s argument on the issue is entirely without merit. Falsifications and Applicant’s Mens Rea The remaining six allegations of the SOR alleged that Applicant falsified four SCAs and two PSIs in that he failed to accurately report this 2019 termination from Company W and a 2021 termination from Company L/E. SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.d, 1.f, 1.h–l.j. Instead of disclosing that he was fired from those two employments, Applicant reported variously that his contract ended, that he was released, or that the client no longer needed as many linguists. He specifically denied being fired, disciplined, or reprimanded. On appeal, Applicant’s counsel argues that Applicant’s statements were not deliberately false because, “as a non-native English speaker, [Applicant] did not understand the distinction between an employment which is terminated by the end of a contract and an employment which is terminated by firing” and that he therefore lacked the requisite mens rea to establish the falsifications. Appeal Brief at 9. Applicant’s counsel correctly highlights that, in falsification cases, it is not enough for the Government to establish that an applicant’s answers were not true. Instead, the judge must analyze an applicant’s intent, based upon a consideration of all record evidence, to determine if answers were deliberately false. Id. Contrary to Applicant’s argument, however, record evidence directly supports the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant deliberately falsified his SCAs and that he was not honest during his interviews. For example, regarding the termination from Company W, the record contains the following email from Applicant to Company W personnel dated August 29, 2019: You guys have fired me and kicked me out of base within hours notice and you guys said that just cuz the [ADF] thinks bad of me that’s enough for you to fire me and Also wants to report a false accusation! I will hire an attorney who will be suing you guys within 3 days and I’ll make sure that your company will be mentioned to the government and what you guys do to translators and how much low and bad you guys treat us, trust me your names will be mentioned and I’ll make sure it goes viral, you guys [have] so many Violations with DOD KAF, first you allow translators to use [host country] citizens to enter [the host country] when they should never use it due to the agreement they signed with you! You guys [have] miss treated me and badly and wants to ruin my career over false and non evidenced info! Let’s play this game guys. I will be contacting the state senator as well. GE 8 at 5 (emphasis added). To state the obvious, Applicant clearly understood in the immediate wake of the incident at Company W that he was indeed fired. Any argument to the contrary is expressly disproved by Applicant’s own email. Similarly, regarding the termination from Company L/E, the record contains an email and letter from the company dated July 6, 2021, which informed Applicant that he was “terminated” from his overseas contract for “failure to perform duties as expected,” and detailed specific issues with Applicant’s work professionalism and failures to follow the chain of command. GE 7 at 2. The letter advised Applicant that his termination was effective immediately, that his work visa was cancelled, and that he had a 30-day period to obtain a new residence permit or leave the country. At hearing, Applicant acknowledged that he received the letter and read it. Transcript at 52–54. 4

The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant deliberately falsified his SCAs and PSIs regarding these two terminations is well-supported by record evidence. The strained argument of counsel on appeal that Applicant did not understand that he was fired from the two employments is without merit. Conclusion Applicant has not established that the Judge’s conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Rather, the Judge examined and weighed the disqualifying and mitigating evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The record is sufficient to support that the Judge’s findings and conclusions are sustainable. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b). Order The decision in ISCR Case No. 25-01091 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Eric H. Borgstrom Eric H. Borgstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 5