1 
                                                              
                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 )   
  )  CAC Case No. 16-03733 
  )   
Applicant for CAC Eligibility ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CERVI, Gregg A., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant refuted the Common Access Card (CAC) credentialing concerns raised 
under supplemental adjudicative standards (SAS) for misconduct or negligence in 
employment; and material, intentional false statement, deception, or fraud. CAC eligibility 
is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted a Declaration for Federal Employment (Form 306) on August 
18, 2016, and a Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions (SF-85P) on August 19, 2016. 
On June 1, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons 
(SOR) to Applicant detailing credentialing concerns for CAC eligibility under Homeland 
Security Presidential Directive – 12 (HSPD-12). The DOD was unable to find that granting 
Applicant CAC eligibility did not pose an unacceptable risk.1 The concerns raised under 
the Adjudicative Standards of DODI 5200.46 are SAS paragraph 1.a, misconduct or 
                                                          
1 The action was taken under the Adjudicative Standards found in DOD Instruction (DODI) 5200.46, DOD 
Investigative and Adjudicative Guidelines for Issuing the CAC, dated September 9, 2014, and the 
procedures set out in Enclosure 3 of DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security 
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive).  
 
 
2 
negligence in employment; and paragraph 3.a, material, intentional false statement, 
deception, or fraud. 
 
Applicant responded to the SOR on June 30, 2017, and elected to have the case 
decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. The Government’s written brief with 
supporting documents, known as the File of Relevant Material (FORM), was submitted 
by Department Counsel on July 25, 2017. 
 
A complete copy of the FORM was provided to Applicant, who was afforded an 
opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the CAC 
credentialing concerns. Applicant received the FORM on August 14, 2017, but did not 
submit a response FORM items 5 and 6 consist of inadmissible written statements under 
section E3.1.22 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive.2 The Government’s remaining exhibits 
included in the FORM (Items 1 to 4) are admitted into evidence. The case was assigned 
to me on January 16, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is 25 years old. She has worked as a lab aide for her current employer 
since November 2014. From 2007 to December 2013, Applicant worked as a teaching 
assistant at a school. The SOR alleges that Applicant was fired from this job, and failed 
to report it in her federal employment declaration (Form 302). 
 
 In response to the SOR, Applicant stated that “[I] was told they would not need me 
during the school year, but that I could keep working in the summer if I wished to. I did 
not take that a[s] being terminated, but as being a different schedule.” She denied 
falsifying her Form 302, claiming she answered to the best of her knowledge and was 
truthful. 
 
Misconduct or negligence in employment eligibility concerns, and material, 
intentional false statement, deception, or fraud have not been established. SOR ¶¶ 1.a 
and 2.a are found for Applicant. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as 
required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
    Paragraph 1, Misconduct or Negligence in Employment:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
    Subparagraph 1.a:      For Applicant 
 
                                                          
2 There was no admissible evidence to establish the facts alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a under the misconduct or 
negligence in employment eligibility concerns and SOR ¶ 2.a under the intentional false statement eligibility 
concerns. Because I am unable to make findings of fact about those allegations, SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 2.a are 
found for Applicant and will not be discussed further. 
 
 
3 
    Paragraph 2, Material, Intentional False Statement,  
    Deception, or Fraud:       FOR APPLICANT 
 
    Subparagraph 2.a:      For Applicant   
   
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, granting 
Applicant CAC eligibility does not pose an unacceptable risk. CAC eligibility is granted. 
 
 
      
_______________________ 
Gregg A. Cervi 
Administrative Judge