KEYWORD: Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: In October 2001, Applicant was terminated from his job for misusing the employer’s
credit card, and for poor performance as communicated by a customer. His subsequent denials
(1) that he was terminated for misuse of his employer’s credit card in October 2001, (2) that he
deliberately omitted information in June 2004 from his security form and from his May 2005
interview concerning the reasons for his termination, (3) that he deliberately concealed the check
deception charges from his security from in June 2004, and (4) that he still contends he did not
conceal anything, establish adverse findings under the personal conduct and criminal conduct
guidelines that have not been mitigated. Clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 06-07214.h1
DATE: 04/30/2007
DATE: April 30, 2007
In re:
------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-07214
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PAUL J. MASON
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James F. Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
In October 2001, Applicant was terminated from his job for misusing the employer’s credit
card, and for poor performance as communicated by a customer. In November 2002, Applicant
engaged in four counts of misdemeanor check deception. His subsequent denials (1) that he was
terminated for misuse of his employer’s credit card in October 2001, (2) that he deliberately omitted
information in June 2004 from his security form and from his May 2005 interview concerning the
reasons for his termination, (3) that he deliberately concealed the check deception charges from his
security form in June 2004, and (4) that he still contends he did not conceal anything, establish
adverse findings under the personal conduct and criminal conduct guidelines that have not been
mitigated. Clearance is denied. 
STATEMENT OF CASE 
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
security clearance for Applicant. On August 31, 2006, under Executive Order 10865 and Department
of Defense Directive 5200.6, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the reasons for
its security concerns raised under the personal conduct guideline (Guideline E), and the criminal
conduct guideline (Guideline J) of the Directive. Applicant furnished three answers to the SOR. One
answer is dated October 1, 2006, one is undated, and one is time-stamped by DOHA on November
3, 2006. Applicant requested a decision be made on the record in lieu of a hearing. 
A copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM, the Government’s evidence
in support of the SOR) was sent to Applicant on January 9, 2007. Applicant received the FORM on
January 17, 2007. Applicant’s response to the FORM was due by February 16, 2007. No response
was submitted. The case was assigned to me for decision on March 22, 2007.
RULINGS ON PROCEDURE
Pursuant to E3.1.17. of the Directive, I am amending SOR 2.a. by changing the number of
counts inside the parentheses from 3 counts to 4 counts. The second sentence in SOR 2.a. is deleted
and replaced with, “The four offenses were dismissed upon Applicant’s payment of restitution.” 
FINDINGS OF FACT
The SOR contains five allegations of personal conduct (Guideline E) set forth in paragraph
1. Applicant denied all allegations under paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 contains two allegations of
criminal conduct (Guideline J) which he admitted. Applicant is 45 years old and has been employed
as a lead technician with a defense contractor since August 2003. He was in the United States Air
Force Reserve from 1983 to 1986, and has held a security clearance since 1988. Applicant is married.
According to documentation provided by Applicant’s former employer in October 2001,
Applicant’s supervisor terminated Applicant for two primary reasons. The supervisor’s termination
letter (Item 9, SOR 1.a.), was based on “a number of areas of deep concern.” Those areas were (1)
misuse of a credit card for the second time, (2) unacceptable customer rating based on the client
3
specifically requesting Applicant not be allowed on-site, and (3) being absent for two days without
notice. The termination letter was sent certified mail to Applicant on October 11, 2001, and was
signed by Applicant on October 13, 2001 (Item 10). Item 11 (September 20, 2001) describes the
rules for proper use of the employer credit card, and an example of how one should be filled out.
Item 12, dated April 2, 2001 describes the situations in which the credit card was to be used. In bold
print, the statement indicates the card is to be used for business only, and improper use could lead
to disciplinary action “up to and including termination.” According to the statement, the company
must be reimbursed if the charge is not for business. The final portion of the exhibit reflects a few
non-business entries reimbursed by Applicant, and situations where no receipt was provided.
Applicant provided reimbursement to the company in two checks amounting to $118.00. 
Applicant’s denial of SOR 1.a. is based on his claim the supervisor told him individually that
his termination was for unsatisfactory job performance. Even though the supervisor may have
discussed one of the reasons for his termination, that discussion does not change the fact that
Applicant received the termination letter detailing management’s reasons for his termination. Item
9 indicates Applicant was supposed to meet with this supervisor on October 11, 2001 to discuss his
job performance and future with the company. Applicant failed to appear, and the reasons for
termination were sent (certified mail) to his residence. Applicant signed for the termination letter
(Item 10).
On June 25, 2004, less than three years after his termination, Applicant certified a Security
Clearance Application, Standard Form 86 (SCA). In response to question 20 (Your Employment
Record), Applicant indicated “yes,” and chose the explanation that he “left a job by mutual
agreement following allegations of unsatisfactory performance.” From Applicant’s point of view,
the circumstances surrounding his termination were not based on mutual agreement as Applicant
stated in the remarks module of question 20 of the SCA. Rather, Applicant indicated his
disagreement with his supervisor’s explanation for the termination (the customer was unhappy with
Applicant’s job performance). He claimed he had been receiving outstanding performance ratings
in the past year before his termination. The termination letter (Item 9) does not support Applicant’s
position that the termination was mutually agreed to based on allegations on unsatisfactory
performance. Considering the evidence as whole, I find Applicant did not leave by mutual
agreement. I also find he provided misinformation about his job termination. 
In response to question 26 (in the last 7 years, have you ever been arrested for, charged with,
or convicted of any offense(s) not listed in modules 21, 22, 23, 24, or 25?) of the same SCA (and
alleged in SOR 1.c.), he answered “no.” Applicant failed to reveal his four misdemeanor charges for
check deception in November 2002 (less than two years before he certified the SCA). Applicant’s
explanation for the “no” answer is that he was arrested for some traffic offense and was never
provided notice of the check deception charges that resulted in his restitution. Yet, in response to
SOR 2.a., Applicant admitted he was cited for the check charges but assumed the corresponding
creditors had been paid or the debts owed had been discharged in bankruptcy. 
A summary of filings and other proceedings related to the check deception charges (SOR 1.c.,
2.a.) is set forth in Item 13, showing Applicant received notice of the charges over the course of
approximately five months between September 2002 and January 2003, when the charges were
dismissed. I find against Applicant under SOR 1.c. and 2.a.
4
On the same SCA furnished by Applicant in June 2004, he answered “no” to question 36 (In
the last 7 years, have you had a lien placed against your property for failing to pay taxes or other
debts?) Though Applicant admitted in his answer that he knew about taxes he needed to pay in 2000,
there is insufficient information for me to make a finding under SOR 1.d. against Applicant. 
Applicant denied he provided false information to the investigator (SOR 1.e.) on May 25,
2005. Applicant’s reliance on the previous conversation with the supervisor regarding Applicant’s
poor performance does not change the contents of termination letter describing the primary reasons
for Applicant’s termination. He knew about both reasons, but only divulged one to the investigator.
I find Applicant concealed information by not disclosing both reasons for his job termination in
October 2001. 
Subparagraph 2.a. reflects that Applicant was found guilty of four counts (not three) of check
deception. The records reflect all charges were dismissed on condition Applicant pay restitution
(Item 13) which he paid. 
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth guidelines containing disqualifying conditions (DC)
and mitigating conditions (MC) that should be given binding consideration in making security
clearance determinations. These conditions must be considered in every case along with the general
factors of the whole person concept. However, the conditions are not automatically determinative
of the decision in any case nor can they supersede the Administrative Judge's reliance on his own
common sense. 
Burden of Proof
Initially, the government must establish, by substantial evidence, that conditions exist in the
personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualifies, or may disqualify, the applicant
from being eligible for access to classified information. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484
U.S. 518, 531 (1988) “[The Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between
proven conduct under any of the Criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability.” ISCR
Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996) (quoting ISCR Case No. 92-1106 (App. Bd. Oct. 7,
1993)). 
Once the government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the
burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. “[Security clearance
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” See Egan, 481 U.S. at 531; see
Directive E2.2.2.
Personal Conduct (Guideline E)
This guideline applies to poor judgment or dishonesty, or an unwillingness to comply with
rules and regulations.
5
Criminal Conduct (Guideline J)
Violating the law shows poor judgment and unreliability.
CONCLUSIONS
In applying for security clearance access, an applicant has a responsibility to provide truthful
information during all phases of a security investigation. Two important stages in the investigation
occur in the completion of the SCA and the interview with an investigator. Applicant’s denial of
SOR 1.a. and 1.e. is discredited by the documentation to the contrary reflecting the two primary
reasons he was terminated. His deliberate omissions (SOR 1.a., 1.b. 1.c., and 1.e.) meet the definition
of personal conduct (PC) disqualifying condition (DC) E2.A5.1.2.2. (the deliberate omission of
relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire used to determine security
clearance eligibility) and PC DC E2.A5.1.2.3. (deliberately providing false misleading information
concerning relevant and material matters to an investigator in connection with a personnel security
or trustworthiness determination). First, under SOR 1.b (question 20 of the SCA), Applicant did not
leave the job by mutual agreement. Rather he conceded he was being terminated even though he
thought he had been receiving outstanding performance appraisals in the year before his termination.
Concerning SOR 1.c., the printout (Item 13) and Applicant’s statement in response to SOR 2.a.
completely impeaches his present assertions to the contrary. 
Under SOR 1.d. (question 36, liens within the last 7 years), Applicant knew he had taxes to
pay when he filed his bankruptcy. However, there is insufficient evidence for me to conclude from
his knowledge of taxes he owed  that he had liens filed against him, particularly when there is no
documentation to show the state filed a lien based on taxes owed. SOR 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., and 1.e. are
found against Applicant. SOR 1.d. is found for him. 
The mitigating conditions (MC) under the PC guideline have been analyzed, but none apply
as Applicant does not believe he was terminated for misusing a credit card. PC MC E2.A5.1.3.1. (the
information was unsubstantiated or not pertinent to judgment and trustworthiness) is inapplicable.
Information about previous jobs or criminal history is material in the government’s predictive
determination about security clearance access. 
PC MC E2.A5.1.3.2. (the falsification was an isolated incident, was not recent, and the
individual has subsequently provided correct information voluntarily) and PC MC E2.A5.1.3.3. (The
individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct th falsification before being confronted with
the facts) are also unavailable as Applicant still contends he did not conceal any information. Based
on the totality of the evidence, except for SOR 1.d., Applicant’s deliberate falsifications have not
been mitigated.
The adverse evidence of personal conduct also has independent significance under the
criminal conduct (CC) guideline. CC DC E2.A10.1.2.1. (allegations or admission of criminal
conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged) applies to SOR 2.a. and 2.b. First,
Applicant admitted four counts of check deception in November 2002. The fact that the prosecutor
withdrew the charges does not eliminate Applicant’s fraudulent conduct. After Applicant’s criminal
behavior in November 2002, he violated 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1001 in June 2004, when
6
he deliberately concealed information about (1) why he was terminated from his job in October 2001
and (2) his criminal record. Information regarding previous jobs and a criminal record is material
because these items of information can change the course of the government’s security investigation
in making a predictive decision about an applicant’s security suitability.
The CC guideline has three mitigating conditions that may apply here. However, Applicant’s
current view he did  deliberately falsify the security form or the information in his interview
forecloses the application of any of the following conditions. Those conditions are CC MC
E2.A10.1.3.1. (the criminal behavior was not recent), CC MC E2.A101.3.2. (the crime was an
Isolated incident), and CC MC E2.A10.1.3.6. (there is clear evidence of successful rehabilitation).
Applicant has not been forthright with the government about his past. SOR 2.a., 2.b., and the CC
guideline are found against Applicant. 
Applicant’s dishonest conduct under the PC and CC guidelines justify the same conclusion
even when the circumstances of this case are evaluated under the broader factors of the whole person
concept. Providing untruthful information about one’s background during a security investigation
is serious. Applicant’s deliberate falsifications in June 2004 and May 2005 are aggravated by his
ongoing position that he did nothing wrong. Though the conversation between Applicant and the
supervisor could have taken place before his termination in October 2001, Applicant’s employer at
the time mailed the company’s official position to Applicant by certified mail which Applicant
signed for. His decision not to disclose either that information or his criminal history information
reinforces the ultimate finding against Applicant under the PC and CC guidelines. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1 (Personal Conduct, Guideline E): AGAINST THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph a. Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph b. Against the Applicant. 
Subparagraph c. Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph d. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph e. Against the Applicant.
Paragraph 2 (Criminal Conduct, Guideline J): AGAINST THE APPLICANT.
Subparagraph a. Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph b. Against the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.
7
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge