ISCR Case No. 24-01917

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

FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 19, 2025, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) 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 July 17, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Eric H. Borgstrom denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged three financial concerns under Guideline F. Under Guideline E, the SOR alleged 18 security concerns: a 2015 arrest, a 2019 termination from employment with the Department of the Navy (DoN), the concomitant suspension of her security clearance, six subsequent terminations between May 2020 and November 2021 from various non-federal employments, and nine falsifications on two security clearance applications (SCAs) about the arrest, the terminations, and the suspension of her clearance.

Following a hearing, the Judge found favorably for Applicant on all Guideline F allegations and on nine Guideline E allegations, specifically: the allegation regarding her arrest, four allegations about terminations from non-federal jobs, and four allegations regarding her failures to disclose the arrest and certain non-federal terminations on two SCAs. Those favorable findings are not before the Board, and the facts surrounding those allegations will not be discussed below. The Judge found adversely on nine Guideline E allegations, specifically: Appli

cant’s 2019 termination from her DoN job, the related suspension of her security clearance, two terminations from non-federal jobs in 2020 for violations of her employers’ policies, and five allegations that she failed—on two SCAs—to accurately disclose both her 2019 termination from her DoN position and the suspension of her clearance. On appeal of those adverse findings, Applicant alleges multiple factual and legal errors. Finding no error, we affirm. Background Applicant is in her mid-50s. Married in 1997, Applican

t separated in 2010 and divorced in 2014. She has four children, all now young adults. Following graduation from college in 1994, Applicant worked for DoN in various positions until 2019. Applicant was granted a secret clearance in 1994 and retained eligibility until July 2019. Suspension of Clearance, Removal from Federal Service, and Related Falsifications The Judge’s adverse findings pertain almost entirely to Applicant’s workplace misconduct in June 2019, which resulted in the suspension of her clearance (SOR ¶ 1.h), her removal from federal service (SOR ¶ 1.g), and her subsequent falsifications on SCAs regarding those two events (SOR ¶¶ 1.j–1.n). These allegations and the Judge’s findings are detailed below. At the time of the June 2019 misconduct, Applicant was employed at a DoN systems command as a program analyst (GS-14 equivalent). At hearing, Applicant testified that — in the years leading up to the misconduct — her requests for sick leave and annual leave were repeatedly denied by her supervisor and the prior supervisor, that she was denied leave for not following protocols, and that she was often placed into an absent without leave (AWOL) status despite having sick leave and annual leave balances available. In March 2019, Applicant received written counseling about time and attendance issues. Transcript (Tr.) at 127-128. Regarding the June 2019 incident that culminated in her removal, Applicant testified that she decided to go AWOL because of an unwelcome interaction with a male coworker in which he walked up behind Applicant and whispered a sexual comment in her ear. Under cross examination, Applicant declined to repeat what her coworker purportedly said, but she described it as being “verbally, sexually assaulted.” Id. at 132. Applicant testified that she reported the incident to her supervisor and that the supervisor was dismissive of her report. She also testified that she had previously reported other accounts of sexual harassment by various coworkers to her supervisor and to DoN’s sexual harassment office and that no action had been taken. In the wake of this particular incident, Applicant elected the following week to stay at home for two days because she wanted no further interactions with the male coworker. She then falsified and certified her timecard, stating that she had attended an off-site training course during the two days that she remained home. 2

When initially questioned about her absence from work, Applicant lied to her supervisor and a senior officer about attending the training, and she discussed some of the subject-matter content of the training to convince her supervisor that she had attended. Id. at 155–156. Upon a review of the training roster, her command confirmed that Applicant did not attend. When again confronted, Applicant admitted that she had not attended the training. On July 12, 2019, she was suspended from her employment, placed on administrative leave, and escorted off base. Her government laptop, government cell phone, and Common Access Card were confiscated at that time. Coincident with being placed on administrative leave, the command advised Applicant that her security clearance was suspended and gave her an opportunity to respond. On July 24, 2019, after considering her response, the command sent Applicant a formal Notice of Decision to Suspend Access to Classified Information (Clearance Suspension Notice), which cited security concerns under three Guidelines — Personal Conduct, Criminal Conduct, and Use of Information Technology. Government Exhibit (GE) 8 at 1–2. By the same Clearance Suspension Notice, the command suspended Applicant’s physical access to its facility. Under cross examination, Applicant acknowledged that she received the Clearance Suspension Notice, but she repeatedly refused to acknowledge that she understood her security clearance was suspended, instead testifying that she understood at the time that her access to the base and the facility were suspended, which had the collateral effect of suspending her access to classified material. For example, she testified that the Clearance Suspension Notice “suspended my access because I was no longer at the base” and “I associated [the suspension] with no longer being at the base and so I didn’t have access to it.” Tr. at 159, 163. In September 2019, the command sent Applicant a Notice of Proposed Removal and provided her an opportunity to respond. She replied in early October 2019. On November 25, 2019, the command issued Applicant a Notice of Decision to Remove (Removal Notice), giving her “official notice” of its decision to remove her from federal service for “disrespectful conduct, failure to follow instructions, lack of candor, conduct unbecoming a Federal employee, and unauthorized absence,” with an effective date of December 4, 2019. GE 9 at 1. The six-page Removal Notice articulated a thorough analysis of the applicable Douglas factors. Among other factors, the analysis highlighted the following: that Applicant’s misconduct “was serious and intentional”; that as a GS-14 equivalent she was “expected to know and understand acceptable standards of conduct”; that she lacked candor and dependability; that she had been counseled on several occasions regarding her attendance and other conduct concerns and had received a formal written counseling in March 2019; and that the workplace issues that she described in her October 2019 response did not “mitigate, justify, nor excuse” her behavior. Id. at 1–4. The Removal Notice also explicitly noted that Applicant’s actions “were so serious that [they] resulted in the suspension of your security clearance.” Id. at 2. The Judge found that the circumstances surrounding Applicant’s termination and the suspension of her clearance established AG ¶ 16(d).1 In reaching that conclusion, the Judge 1 AG ¶ 16(d): credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard clas

sified or sensitive information. This includes, but is not limited to, consideration of: (3) a pattern of dishonesty or 3

highlighted Applicant’s two-day AWOL, her falsified timecard, and her repeated attempts to deceive her chain of command until confronted with the attendance roster. He also noted that her misconduct in June 2019 “was not an isolated incident but reflected a pattern of misconduct, reprimands, and continued violations.” Decision at 18. In concluding that none of the mitigating conditions applied to Applicant’s workplace misconduct, the Judge stated: [Applicant] has admitted responsibility for her falsified timecard and lying to her supervisor and the Navy officer; however, she seeks to offset the seriousness of this misconduct with evidence of the hostile work environment and uninvestigated sexual harassment claims. While not dismissing the seriousness of such circumstances in the office environment, if present, Applicant has provided no corroborating evidence that she reported her harassment claims to any appropriate authority. More importantly, Applicant’s pattern of deception by falsifying a timecard, lying to the Navy officer and her supervisor, and then offering information about the training in furtherance of her deception, is not mitigated by her allegations of a hostile work environment. Id. at 23. We turn now to Applicant’s five falsifications about the suspension of her clearance, her termination from the DoN jo

b, and her disciplinary history there (SOR ¶¶ 1.j–1.n). On both a February 2022 and a February 2023 SCA, under Section 25 – Investigations and Clearance Record, Applicant answered “NO” to the question, “Have you EVER had a security clearance eligibility/access authorization denied, suspended, or revoked?” GE 2 at 51; GE 1 at 56. Additionally, on both SCAs, under Section 13A – Employment Activities, Applicant reported as her reason for leaving her position with DoN: “Left by mutual agreement following charges or allegations of misconduct.” In explanation, Applicant wrote: 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 time card. 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; GE 1 at 27–28. On her February 2022 SCA, Applicant also denied that she had been reprimanded, disciplined, or suspended during her employment at the systems command. In her Answer to the SOR (Answer), on the allegations that she falsified answers about the suspension of her security clearance, Applicant stated that she “erroneously” denied that her clearance was suspended because “It was my incorrect understanding that I was suspended, not the clearance.” Answer at 4. She explained: This was as a result of negotiations with [the command] and my lawyer. However, when I have gone through my records, the documentation to support this was never provided with a final signature from [the command]. I had thought that the rule violations. 4

negotiations had resulted in a signed document. This is incorrect. There was no intent to deliberately fail to disclose. Id. Applicant relied on these same purported negotiations to explain why she also failed to disclose that she was fired on both SCAs. Regarding her failure to disclose on her February 2022 SCA that she had been reprimanded, Applicant stated that she did not intend to falsify the SCA but simply “may have checked the incorrect block” on the form. Id. at 5. Under cross examination at hearing, Applicant admitted that she likely received both her Clearance Suspension Notice (GE 8) and her Removal Notice (GE 9). As in her Answer, Applicant cited to negotiations during which her attorney prepared a letter that would allow her clearance to be reinstated or her termination to be recharacterized, but Applicant admitted that the letter was never signed or finalized by the command. Noting that Applicant relied upon this purported letter to justify her failures to disclose her termination and the suspension of her clearance, the Judge found that “[t]here is no record evidence corroborating her claimed negotiations or any mutual agreement between Applicant and the Navy concerning her separation from employment or the reinstatement of her clearance.” Decision at 9. Citing to the extensive DoN correspondence regarding both Applicant’s clearance suspension and removal from federal service and to certain admissions that Applicant made during background interviews, the Judge found that the record evidence established that Applicant knew she was fired and knew her clearance was suspended when she completed her February 2022 and February 2023 SCAs and that her failures to accurately report the termination and the suspension of her clearance, as alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.j through 1.m, were deliberate falsifications within the meaning of AG 16(a).2 The Judge specifically found that Applicant was not credible either 1) in her claim that she was unaware of her clearance suspension or 2) in her explanation for why she did not accurately report her termination. Decision at 19, 21. Moreover, after a review of the evidence of record, the Judge concluded that Applicant also falsified her February 2022 SCA in Section 13A, in which she denied that she had “received a written warning, been officially reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined for misconduct in the workplace” while at the systems command (SOR ¶ 1.n). In concluding that Applicant did not mitigate the five falsification allegations, the Judge highlighted that “Applicant did not make prompt, good-faith efforts to correct her false responses and continues to deny any intent to falsify her [SCA] responses, despite significant documentary evidence undercutting her explanations.” Id. at 24. Terminations from Non-Federal Employments The Judge found adversely to Applicant regarding two terminations in 2020 from non- federal jobs: one was at a hardware store (SOR ¶ 1.d) and the other at a restaurant (SOR ¶ 1.c). These will be addressed briefly, as they are not the gravamen of the Judge’s decision or Applicant’s appeal. 2 AG ¶ 16(a): deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities. 5

From June to August 2020, Applicant was employed as a cashier at a hardware store. The Judge found that she was terminated in August 2020 following “multiple violations of her employer’s policies,” citing to record evidence that she received a June 2020 verbal warning for “insubordination and violation of an established work rule,” that she had also been warned against hugging/touching customers, that she continued to touch and hug customers, that she was fired after she belittled another employee in front of a customer, and that her termination letter cited other violations of employee policies that had occurred. Id. at 18. In concluding that AG ¶ 16(d) was established, the Judge acknowledged that Applicant disputed any policy violations but highlighted that “the employer meticulously documented the policy violations and disciplinary actions.” Id. From June to November 2020, Applicant was employed part time at a restaurant. In November 2020, Applicant was terminated after she repeatedly called out for injuries or illnesses. During her August 2022 background interview, Applicant admitted that she had been reprimanded once for not reporting to work without proper notification and that she had received a verbal reprimand for insubordination and arguing with a supervisor following a verbal confrontation with another employee. The Judge applied AG ¶ 16(d), finding that the record evidence established that Applicant received multiple reprimands for violation of her employer’s policies, resulting in her termination. Discussion There is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the Government produces evidence raising security concerns, an applicant bears the burden of persuasion concerning mitigation. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. On appeal, Applicant asserts that the Judge made “factual and/or legal errors.” Appeal Brief at 1. When a judge’s factual findings are challenged, we examine those findings to see 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. A judge’s decision can be arbitrary or capricious if: it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference of opinion. See ISCR Case No. 95-0600, 1996 WL 480993 at *3 (App. Bd. May. 16, 1996) (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)). We note two preliminary issues with Applicant’s appeal. First, Applicant challenges several of the Judge’s findings and conclusions on allegations that he found favorably for her. Appeal Brief at 2–3, 9. Those findings are not before the Board, and her arguments regarding them will not be addressed. Second, Applicant submitted new evidence in her appeal brief and attached new documents, and her narrative and new documentary evidence forms the basis for several of her arguments. The Appeal Board, however, does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from 6

considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Putting that evidence and related arguments aside, we turn to Applicant’s remaining challenges. Applicant’s arguments are wide-ranging and not easily deciphered. Primarily, Applicant appears to challenge the Judge’s conclusion that she deliberately falsified the two SCAs, that is, his conclusion that she knew that she had been fired from DoN and that her clearance was suspended when she completed the forms. For example, citing to her own testimony, Applicant argues that she presented evidence at the hearing that “supported [her] belief that [her] security clearance suspension had been reversed (based on the negotiations with the firm and [the command]).” Appeal Brief at 2. The issue of Applicant’s knowledge is an issue of her state of mind. The Judge was certainly required to consider Applicant’s explanations and her denial of any intent to falsify the two SCAs. However, the Judge was not obligated to simply accept Applicant’s statements about her intent at face value. Rather, he had an obligation to consider Applicant’s testimony in light of the record as a whole, including his assessment of her credibility. ISCR Case No. 00-0601 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 21, 2001). The Judge’s findings that Applicant knew when she completed the two SCAs that her clearance was suspended and that she had been fired are amply supported by the evidence to which he

cited. Both the Clearance Suspension Notice and the subsequent Removal Notice were painstakingly clear and thorough and would have left Applicant with no doubt as to her clearance and job status. Conversely, and as the Judge highlighted, Applicant’s contention that she believed the suspension was later “reversed” and her termination somehow re-characterized lacks any corroboration in the record and is belied by various statements that Applicant herself made during the adjudicative process. The Judge explicitly found that Applicant’s explanations for misunderstanding her clearance status and her termination status were not credible. The Directive requires us to defer to that credibility assessment,3 and this record and brief give us no reason to disturb the Judge’s adverse determination. Applicant state

s repeatedly that the Judge made inconsistent findings regarding the falsification allegations. Our review, however, confirms that the Judge was simply capturing Applicant’s varying statements on this pivotal issue — whether she deliberately falsified the SCAs or was genuinely confused over her clearance and job status. In just one example, Applicant challenges a particular paragraph in which the Judge quotes Applicant’s testimony that she