KEYWORD: Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant contends that he did not provide Company B with the same resume that he
used to obtain employment with Company A.  As noted above, Applicant admitted in his SOR
response that he used the falsified resume he had purchased from a third party to apply for and
obtain employment with Company B.  The Judge’s material findings regarding Applicant’s use
of the falsified resume to obtain employment with Company B are based on substantial evidence
or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the record evidence. Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-01821.a1
DATE: 04/20/2018
DATE: April 20, 2018
In Re:
--------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-01821
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On June
15, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the
written record.  On January 31, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The SOR alleged that Applicant paid a third party $1,000 in 2014 to falsify a resume for him
that contained erroneous certifications; that he paid that third party $1,000 in 2014 to act as him
during the hiring process with Company A, which hired him; and that he used the false resume in
2014 to obtain employment with Company B, which, upon learning of the false resume and lack of
certifications, fired him in 2015.  In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted each of the SOR
allegations without providing any explanations for his conduct.  In August 2017, he received
Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and was given 30 days to file objections
and submit additional information.  He did not submit a response to the FORM. 
In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that he did not provide Company B with the same
resume that he used to obtain employment with Company A.  As noted above, Applicant admitted
in his SOR response that he used the falsified resume he had purchased from the third party to apply
for and obtain employment with Company B.1  The Judge’s material findings regarding Applicant’s
use of the falsified resume to obtain employment with Company B are based on substantial evidence
or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the record evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014).   
Applicant also contends some dates and job titles are not accurate.  In the decision, the Judge
did not use the job titles that Applicant has referenced in his brief.  Because we are unable to
determine with any degree of certitude exactly what error Applicant is raising regarding the dates
and titles, these assignments of error fail for lack of specificity.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05920
at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016).  
Applicant has not cited to any error likely to affect the outcome of the case.  The Judge
examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  The
decision is sustainable on this record.  “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only
when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”  Department of the Navy v.
Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  See also Directive, Encl. 2, App A ¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt concerning
personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national
security.”
1 In his background interview, Applicant reportedly stated that he accidentally submitted the resume created
by the third party when he applied for the job with Company B.  Item 5 of the FORM. 
2
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan            
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                 
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3