KEYWORD: Criminal Conduct; Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: When he executed and signed a Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions (SF-85P) in
August 2004, Applicant deliberately falsified his answer to Question 20 by denying that in the past
seven years he had been arrested, charged with, or convicted of any offenses when, in fact, he had
been arrested and charged with drawing and uttering fraudulent checks, and he was convicted of one
count of drawing and uttering a fraudulent check in June 2004.  He also deliberately falsified his
answer to Question 22b on the SF-85P by denying he was over 180 days past due on any debts.
Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns under the Criminal Conduct, Financial Considerations,
and Personal Conduct Guidelines.  Eligibility is denied. 
CASENO: 06-15502.h1
DATE: 04/20/2007
        
DATE:  April 20, 2007
In Re:
-----------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-15502
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOAN CATON ANTHONY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
When he executed and signed a Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions (SF-85P) in August
2004, Applicant deliberately falsified his answer to Question 20 by denying that in the past seven
years he had been arrested, charged with, or convicted of any offenses when, in fact, he had been
arrested and charged with drawing and uttering fraudulent checks, and he was convicted of one count
of drawing and uttering a fraudulent check in June 2004.  He also deliberately falsified his answer
to Question 22b on the SF-85P by denying he was over 180 days past due on any debts.  Applicant
failed to mitigate security concerns under the Criminal Conduct, Financial Considerations, and
Personal Conduct Guidelines.  Eligibility is denied. 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 19, 2004, Applicant submitted an application for a position of public trust.  The
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant the application under
Department of Defense Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program, (Jan. 1987), as amended
(the “Regulation”), and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel
Security Clearance Review Program (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (the “Directive”).  On August 23,
2006, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its decision.  The SOR
alleges security concerns raised under the Criminal Conduct, Financial Considerations, and Personal
Conduct guidelines of the Directive.  A copy of the Directive was provided to Applicant.  The
Criminal Conduct, Financial Considerations, and Personal Conduct guidelines of the Directive and
the Criminal Conduct, Financial Considerations, and Personal Conduct adjudicative guidelines at
Appendix 8 of the Regulation are, for all practical purposes, identical.
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on September 25, 2006, and requested that his case
be determined on the record in lieu of a hearing.  The Government compiled its File of Relevant
Material (FORM) on February 7, 2007.  The FORM contained documents identified as Items 1
through 9.  By letter dated February 9, 2007, a copy of the FORM was forwarded to Applicant, with
instructions to submit any additional information and/or objections within 30 days of receipt.
Applicant timely filed additional information.  On March 29, 2007, the case was assigned to me for
a decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The SOR contains 24 allegations of disqualifying conduct under the Criminal Conduct,
Financial Considerations, and Personal Conduct Guidelines of Appendix 8 of DoD 5200.2-R.  Ten
allegations relate to criminal conduct; twelve allegations relate to financial considerations, and two
allegations relate to personal conduct.  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted nine allegations
under the Criminal Conduct guideline and denied one allegation.  He admitted eleven allegations
under the Financial Considerations guideline, and neither admitted nor denied one allegation.  He
denied one allegation and admitted one allegation under the Personal Conduct guideline.  He noted
mitigating conditions.  Applicant’s admissions are incorporated as findings of fact.
3
Applicant is 39 years old and employed as a computer operator by a defense contractor.  He
earned a high school diploma in June 1985, and he has worked for his present employer since June
1987.  He is unmarried.  (Item 4; Answer to FORM at 1.)
Applicant submitted a signed Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions (SF-85P), which he
dated August 19, 2004, and October 8, 2004.  He certified, with his signature, the following
statement:
My statements on this form, and any attachments to it, are true,
complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are
made in good faith.  I understand that a knowing and willful  false
statement on this form can be punished by fine or imprisonment or
both (See section 1001 of title 18, United States Code.)
 Question 20 on the SF-85P reads, in pertinent part, as follows: “Your Police Record  In the
last 7 years, have you been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offense(s)? (Leave out
traffic fines of less than $150.)” Applicant answered “no” to Question 20.  (Item 4 at 7.)
Question 22 on the SF-85P addresses an applicant’s financial record.  Question 22b asks:
“Are you now over 180 days delinquent on any loan or financial obligation?  Include loans or
obligations funded or guaranteed by the Federal Government.”  Applicant answered “no” to Question
22b.  (Item 4 at 7.)  
Applicant has a history of criminal activity.  In June 1995, he was arrested and charged with
two counts of drawing and uttering a fraudulent check of less than $500.  (SOR allegation 1.a.)  In
August 1995, he was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to pay a fine of approximately $396
on each count and court costs of $20.  (Item 5 at 2; Item 6 at 1-2.)
In December 1995, Applicant was arrested and charged with one count of drawing and
uttering a fraudulent check of less than $500 in October 1995.  In January 1996, he was found guilty
and sentenced to pay a fine of approximately $396 and court costs of $20.  (SOR allegation 1.b.)
(Item 5 at 2; Item 6 at 2.)
In April 1996, Applicant was arrested and charged with three counts of drawing and uttering
a fraudulent check of less than $500 in October 1995.  In June 1996 he was found guilty on one
count and sentenced to pay a fine of about $208 and court costs of $20.  The remaining two counts
were dismissed.  (SOR allegation 1.c.)  (Item 5 at 2; Item 6 at 2.)
In May 1996, Applicant was arrested and charged with two counts of drawing and uttering
a fraudulent check of less than $500 in March 1996.  In June 1996, Applicant was found guilty on
both counts and sentenced to pay a fine of approximately $396 on each count and court costs of $20.
(SOR allegation 1.d.)  (Item 5 at 2; Item 6 at 2.) 
In July 1996, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving under a suspension.  In August
1996, he was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of approximately $376. (SOR allegation 1.e.)
(Item 6 at 3.)  Also in July 1996, Applicant was arrested and charged with two counts of drawing and
Applicant denied he was arrested, charged, or convicted in the matter.  The Government presented credible
1
evidence to corroborate the SOR allegation that Applicant had been arrested and charged with bank fraud. (Items 5 and
6.)  The Government’s evidence did not support a finding that Applicant was found guilty of the charge and sentenced
to a fine of an unspecified amount.
Question 20 asks an applicant to list any arrests, charges, and convictions in the last 7 years and  does not draw
2
distinctions between misdemeanors and felonies.
4
uttering a fraudulent check of less than $500.  In August 1996, he was found guilty on one count and
sentenced to pay a fine of approximately $376.  (SOR allegation 1.f.)  (Item 5 at 3; Item 6 at 3.)   
In January 1997, Applicant was arrested and charged with drawing and uttering a fraudulent
check.  (SOR allegation 1.g.)  (Item 5 at 3; Item 6 at 3.)  In September 1998, Applicant was arrested
and charged with drawing and uttering a fraudulent check in May 1998.  ( SOR allegation 1.h.)
(Item 5 at 3; Item 6 at 3.)
In October 2000, Applicant was arrested and charged with bank fraud in August 2000.1
(SOR allegation 1.i.)  (Item 5 at 3; Item 6 at 3; Answer to FORM at 1.)  In May 2004, Applicant was
arrested and charged with three counts of drawing and uttering a fraudulent check of less than $500
in December 2003.  In June 2004, he was found guilty on one count and sentenced to pay a fine of
approximately $396.  The remaining two counts were dismissed.  (SOR allegation 1.j.)  (Item 5 at
3; Item 6 at 3; Applicant’s Answer to SOR.) 
Applicant’s criminal conduct was alleged in ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.j. of the SOR.  Applicant
admitted the allegations at ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.h. and allegation 1.j.  He denied the allegation at ¶ 1.i.
and stated he was not arrested in the jurisdiction cited in the allegation.  The record does not support
DOHA’s assertion that Applicant was found guilty of the crime charged in ¶ 1.i. and sentenced to
pay a fine of an unspecified amount.  (Item 5 at 3; Item 6 at 3.)  The evidence shows Applicant was
arrested in August 2004 after completing his SF-85P and charged with one count of drawing and
uttering a fraudulent check in December 2003.  This arrest and charge were not alleged in the SOR.
(Item 5 at 3; Item 6 at 4.) 
Applicant also has a history of financial delinquencies, some of which date to at least 2001.
The SOR identified approximately $14, 500 in debts owed by Applicant.  He admitted eleven of the
twelve financial delinquencies alleged in the SOR.  He neither admitted nor denied the allegation
at ¶ 2.c., identifying a debt of $70 which was placed in collection status when a check he presented
for payment was returned.  The debt is shown as unpaid as of June 27, 2006, and February 2, 2007
(Item 8; Item 9.) 
 
Applicant’s credit report for October 2004, shows several debts as more than 180 days
delinquent: ¶¶ 2.f., 2.i., 2.j., 2.k., and 2.l.  Other debts alleged by DOHA and admitted by Applicant
demonstrate on-going financial delinquencies.  ¶¶ 2.a., 2.b., 2.d., 2.e., 2.g., and 2.h.  Nothing in the
record suggests Applicant has sought financial counseling.
Applicant denied deliberately falsifying material facts in his answer to Question 20 on the
SF 85P. (SOR allegation ¶ 3.a.)  He stated he didn’t know that drawing and uttering a fraudulent
check under $500 was a felony.  (Answer ro FORM at 1.)   He denied the arrest, charge, and2
conviction alleged in SOR ¶ 1.i. but provided no evidence to rebut the allegation.  He admitted SOR
5
allegation 1.j., but he denied responsibility for the conduct.  He said the criminal acts were
committed by his friend, but he offered no evidence to rebut the allegation.  (Applicant’s Answer to
FORM at 1.)  Applicant admitted deliberately falsifying his response to Question 22b on the SF-85P.
POLICIES
The ADP adjudication process extends only to sensitive positions.  Positions designated as
ADP I or ADP II are classified as sensitive positions; ADP III positions are not.  Regulation ¶ AP
10.2.  By memorandum dated November 19, 2004, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Counterintelligence and Security directed DOHA to extend the adjudicative process to ADP III
positions as well.
“The standard that must be met for . . .assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all
available information, the person’s loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that . . .assigning
the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.”  Regulation
¶ C6.1.1.1.  Appendix B of the Regulation sets forth the adjudicative policy, as well as the
disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) associated with each guideline.  DoD
contractor personnel are afforded the adjudication procedures contained in the Directive.  Regulation
¶ C8.2.1.
CONCLUSIONS
Criminal Conduct
The Government’s concern under the Criminal Conduct Guideline of the Regulation is that
a history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about an individual’s judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness.  Two conditions could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying:
Disqualifying Condition (DC) (1): any conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally
charged and DC (2): a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.
Applicant was charged with drawing and uttering fraudulent checks on eight separate
occasions between June 1995 and May 2004.  He was charged and convicted of driving under a
suspended license and was sentenced to pay a fine.  He was also arrested and charged with bank
fraud, although he disputed the location of the jurisdiction where the arrest took place.  Applicant’s
actions demonstrate a pattern of criminal conduct and raise concerns under DC 1 and DC 2.
Three Mitigating Conditions (MC) under the Criminal Conduct Guideline might apply to
Applicant’s conduct.  His criminal conduct might be mitigated if it was not recent (MC 1), if his
crime was an isolated incident (MC 2), and if he demonstrated clear evidence of successful
rehabilitation (MC 5).  However, Applicant’s most recent charge of criminal behavior occurred in
2004, making it relatively recent, especially when viewed against his established pattern of criminal
conduct dating to 1995.  Additionally, his crimes were multiple and not isolated, and there is no clear
DC 1 reads: “A history of not meeting financial obligations.” DC 2 reads: ”Deceptive or illegal financial
3
practices such as embezzlement, employee theft, check fraud, income tax evasion, expense account fraud, filing deceptive
loan statements, and other intentional financial breaches of trust.”  DC 3 reads: “Inability or unwillingness to satisfy
debts.”
6
evidence of successful rehabilitation.  Accordingly, I conclude that MC 1, MC 2, and MC 5 are
inapplicable.
Applicant denied SOR allegation 1.i., and the Government did not provide substantial
credible evidence to prove Applicant was convicted and sentenced of the crime alleged.
Accordingly, I conclude SOR allegation 1.i. for Applicant.
Financial Considerations
The Government’s concern under the Financial Considerations Guideline of the Regulation
is that individuals who are financially overextended and unable or unwilling to pay their just debts
may try to generate funds by engaging in illegal acts.  Applicant has a history of not meeting his
financial obligations, and his financial history suggests an inability or unwillingness to satisfy his
debts.  Additionally, Applicant has engaged in deceptive or illegal financial practices, including bank
fraud and drawing and uttering fraudulent checks.  Applicant’s conduct raises security concerns
under Disqualifying Conditions (DC) 1, 2, and 3 of the Financial Considerations Guideline.3
Four Mitigating Conditions could potentially apply to Applicant’s conduct.  His disqualifying
conduct could be mitigated under Mitigating Condition (MC) 1 if it was not recent.  If Applicant’s
conduct was an isolated incident, then MC 2 might apply.  MC 3 might apply Applicant had received
or was receiving financial counseling and there were clear indications that his financial problems
were begin resolved or were under control.  MC 6 might apply if Applicant had initiated a good-faith
effort to repay his overdue creditors or to otherwise resolve his debts.  None of these Mitigating
Conditions apply to the facts of Applicant’s case.
The Government has established, through Applicant’s admissions and the record evidence,
a prima facie case that Applicant is financially overextended and has engaged in deceptive and
illegal financial practices.  Applicant provided no credible evidence to rebut or mitigate the financial
concerns specified in the SOR and identified as disqualifying conditions under the Financial
Considerations Guideline of the Regulation. 
Personal Conduct
In the SOR, DOHA alleged Applicant deliberately falsified his answers to Questions 20 and
22b on SF-85P form he executed and signed in August 2004.  (SOR allegations ¶¶ 3.a. and 3.b.)  In
his answer to the SOR, Applicant denied he had deliberately failed to acknowledge and list his police
record in response to Question 20.  He disputed the identify of the jurisdiction in which he was
arrested for bank fraud. He also stated that a friend wrote the fraudulent checks which resulted in his
arrest, charge and conviction on one count of drawing and uttering a fraudulent check (under $500)
in June 2004.
7
The record shows multiple arrests for drafting and uttering fraudulent checks, including a
conviction about two months before Applicant executed and signed his SF-85P.  Applicant admitted
nine of the ten criminal acts alleged in the SOR.  This conduct occurred while he was working for
his current employer.  Applicant had a strong motive not to reveal his criminal conduct, and his
denial that he deliberately falsified his answer to Question 20 lacks credibility.  He admitted he
deliberately falsified his response to Question 22b by denying he had debts that were over 180 days
past due.
Under Disqualifying Condition (DC) 2 of the Personal Conduct Guideline, a security concern
is raised by the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from
any personal security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct
investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security
clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.  A security concern is
raised under DC 4 of the Regulation by personal conduct or concealment of information that
increases an individual’s vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or pressure.  Applicant was aware
of his multiple arrests and criminal conduct.  He was also aware of his financial delinquencies since
at least 2001, but he had neither sought financial counseling nor developed a plan to pay his
creditors.  After completing his SF-85P in August 2004, he signed a certification attesting that his
answers to the applications were true, complete, correct and made in good faith.  His conduct raises
concerns under DC 2 and DC 4 of the Personal Conduct Guideline.
Several Mitigating Conditions (MC) might apply to Applicant’s conduct.  If the falsification
was an isolated incident, was not recent, and the individual has subsequently provided correct
information voluntarily, MC 2 might apply.  If the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to
correct the falsification before being confronted with the facts, then MC 3 might apply.  If the
individual has taken positive steps to significantly reduce or eliminate vulnerability to coercion,
exploitation, or pressure, then MC 5 might apply.
An applicant’s financial history is material to a determination of his or her eligibility for
access to sensitive information.  With respect to the Personal Conduct alleged in SOR subparagraph
3.a., Applicant’s statements that his falsifications were not deliberate lacked credibility. He omitted
and concealed relevant and material information about his police record and financial delinquencies
in response to Questions 20 and 22b, bringing his conduct under DC 2.  He did not make a prompt,
good-faith effort to correct the falsifications before being confronted with the facts, and thus MC 3
does not apply.  Applicant’s falsifications were recent and not isolated incidents, and he did not
supply the correct information voluntarily.  Thus MC 2 does not apply.  
Applicant’s deliberate concealment of his police record and financial delinquencies increased
his vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or duress. He has not taken positive steps to reduce or
eliminate his vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or duress, and thus MC 5 does not apply.  With
respect to the Personal Conduct Guideline conduct alleged in the SOR, the Government has
established its case.
Whole Person Analysis
Appendix 8 of the Regulation requires that the adjudicative process examine a sufficient
period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable
8
security risk.  The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as
the whole person concept.  In determining an individual’s eligibility for assignment to sensitive
duties, an administrative judge must not only assess conduct under the adjudicative guidelines, but
he or she must also carefully weigh a number of variables known as the whole person concept.  The
factors to be considered in a whole person analysis include the nature, extent, and seriousness of the
conduct; the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; the
frequency and recency of the conduct; the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
the voluntariness of participation; the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent
behavioral changes; the motivation for the conduct ; the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation,
or duress; and the likelihood for continuation or recurrence.
Applicant’s criminal conduct and failure to pay his debts over a period of many years raises
serious security concerns.  Applicant, a high school graduate, was a mature adult when he
deliberately falsified his SF-85P by failing to acknowledge his police record and his financial
delinquencies.  He repeatedly drafted and uttered fraudulent checks over a nine-year period.  His
chronic criminal conduct and his unwillingness to acknowledge and carry out his legal duties to pay
his just debts suggest he may not take his legal duty to carry out sensitive duties seriously.  His
current situation suggests his financial difficulties are likely to continue.
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern.
Adjudications regarding eligibility for assignment to sensitive duties are not intended to assign guilt
or to impose further punishment for past transgressions.  Rather, the objective of the process is the
fair-minded, common sense assessment of a person’s trustworthiness and fitness for assignment to
sensitive duties.  Indeed, the “whole person” concept recognizes we should view a person by the
totality of his or her acts and omissions, including all disqualifying and mitigating conduct.  Having
done so, I conclude Applicant should not be entrusted with eligibility for assignment to sensitive
duties.  In reaching my decision, I have considered the evidence as a whole, including the appropriate
factors and guidelines in Department of Defense Directive, 5220.6., as amended, and Department
of Defense Regulation 5200.2-R, as amended.
FORMAL FINDINGS
My conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR are:
Paragraph 1, Criminal Conduct: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j.: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Financial Considerations: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a. through 2.l.: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Personal Conduct: AGAINST APPLICANT
9
Subparagraphs 3.a. and 3.b.: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for assignment to
sensitive duties.  Eligibility is denied.
Joan Caton Anthony
Administrative Judge