KEYWORD: Financial; Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Between 1996 and 2004, Applicant accrued approximately $9,000 of delinquent debt, and
was charged criminally on 18 occasions for bouncing checks. She failed to disclose the criminal
charges, as required on her 2004 security clearance application, and offered scant evidence that she
has resolved her financial problems. Clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 06-08849.h1
DATE: 05/30/2007
DATE: May 30, 2007
In re:
-----------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-08849
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARC E. CURRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
SYNOPSIS
Between 1996 and 2004, Applicant accrued approximately $9,000 of delinquent debt, and
was charged criminally on 18 occasions for bouncing checks. She failed to disclose the criminal
Applicant’s Answer was unclear with respect to which allegations, if any, she admitted. She clarified her1
admissions at the hearing (Tr. 25).
Tr. 24.2
Tr. 26, 29.3
2
charges, as required on her 2004 security clearance application, and offered scant evidence that she
has resolved her financial problems. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 16, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) explaining why it was not clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue a security clearance. This action was taken under Executive
Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2,
1992, as amended. Applicant answered the SOR on January 29, 2007, admitting the allegations listed
in Paragraph 1, denying the remainder, and requesting a hearing.1
The case was assigned to me on February 22, 2007. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on
March 28, 2007, scheduling Applicant’s hearing for April 17, 2007. On April 13, 2007, Department
Counsel moved to continue the case to April 19, 2007. Applicant did not object, whereupon, I
continued the case, and rescheduled it to the requested date. During the hearing, I received four
government exhibits, the testimony of a government witness, and Applicant’s testimony. At the
Applicant’s request, I left the record open through May 4, 2007 to allow her to submit additional
exhibits. On May 2, 2007, she submitted one additional exhibit which I marked and received as
Exhibit A. DOHA received the transcript on May 9, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT 
The SOR admissions are incorporated as findings of fact. In addition, I make the following
findings of fact.
Applicant is a 39-year-old woman with two teenage children. She is a U.S. Army veteran,
serving from 1986 through her honorable discharge in 1988. She earned a bachelor’s degree in
computer science in 2003. Currently, she works as a production control clerk.2
Between 1996 and 1998, Applicant was charged 18 times with writing bad checks. She wrote
12 of them to purchase food in a cafeteria in the building where she worked at the time. According
to Applicant, she postdated the checks anticipating future deposits, and the company that managed
the cafeteria would attempt to cash them before her deposits cleared.  The charges were consolidated3
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.j, 1.n, and 1.q.4
Subparagraph 1.k.5
Tr. 28.6
Tr. 25. Her husband began paying steady child support payments in approximately 2001 (Tr. 41).7
Tr. 26.8
Tr. 31.9
Subparagraph 1.z.10
Subparagraph 1.aa.11
Subparagraph 1.v.12
Exhibit A, Customer Equipment Maintenance Documents, dated June 6, 2005.13
3
into one criminal proceeding.  On December 12, 1998, she pled guilty to each, and paid4
approximately $110 in restitution.
On September 4, 1997, Applicant wrote a check to a car dealership for $1,300 in order to
help a family friend purchase a car.  She instructed the salesman not to cash the check until her5
friend gave her the cash to cover the check.  Her friend never gave her the money, and when the6
salesman attempted to cash the check, it bounced. In August 1998, she pleaded guilty to a worthless
check charge, was ordered to pay $1,300 restitution, and sentenced to 12 months probation.
Applicant wrote the remaining bad checks, as listed in Subparagraphs 1.l, 1.m, 1.o, 1.p, and
1.r. of the SOR, to miscellaneous payees. She paid restitution, as ordered, for the checks listed in
subparagraphs 1.l and 1.m. The charge listed in subparagraph 1.r was dismissed. The record is
unclear with respect to the outcome of the charges listed in subparagraphs 1.o and 1.p.
Applicant attributes her problems with bouncing checks to financial difficulties caused by
a marital separation in approximately 1997 followed by a divorce in 2001. During that time, she was
receiving no child support.  Also, she attributed her problems to an inability to manage her7
checkbook.  Approximately four years ago, she obtained overdraft protection on her checking8
account.  Since that time, she has not written any more worthless checks.9
In 2001, Applicant’s car was repossessed.  After the dealer resold it, Applicant owed a10
deficiency of approximately $4,092. In 2004, another vehicle she had purchased on credit was
repossessed.  She attributes the second repossession to a 15-month period of unemployment she11
experienced between 2003 and 2004. She owes a deficiency of approximately $3,605 on the second
repossessed vehicle. Currently, both deficiencies remain unpaid.
Applicant owed a cable television company approximately $551 for some equipment she
failed to return after switching providers in 2003.  In 2005, the cable company canceled the12
obligation after she returned the equipment.13
Tr. 27.14
4
With respect to the remaining debts listed in the SOR, Applicant either contests them
(subparagraphs 1.s, 1.u, and 1.y), or contends they have been satisfied (subparagraph 1.t, 1.w, and
1.x). She offered no evidence to support either contention. 
On November 29, 2004, Applicant completed a security clearance application. She failed to
list the worthless check charges in response to Question 26 (In the past 7 years, have you been
arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offense(s) not listed in modules 21, 22, 23, 24, 25?
(Leave out traffic fines of less than $150 unless the violation was alcohol or drug related.) For this
item, report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed or otherwise
stricken from the record). In her answer, she explained that she could not recall them at the time she
completed the application. At the hearing, she testified that she was unaware they were criminal
charges.14
POLICIES
The adjudicative guidelines, as revised December 29, 2005, and implemented September 1,
2006, apply to the analysis of this case. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each
guideline, they are divided into those that may be considered in deciding whether to deny or revoke
an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information (disqualifying conditions) and those
that may be considered in deciding whether to grant an individual’s eligibility for access to classified
information (mitigating conditions).
Because the entire process is a scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person
concept,” all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, should be considered in making a meaningful decision. Specifically these are: (1) the
nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances; (2) the frequency and recency
of the conduct; (3) the age of the applicant; (4) the motivation of the applicant, and the extent to
which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the
consequences; (5) the absence or presence of rehabilitation; and (6) the probability that the
circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future.
The following adjudicative guidelines are raised:
Guideline F - Financial Considerations: Failure or inability to live within one’s
means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control,
lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can
raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of
candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect
classified information.
See generally, Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2.15
5
Guideline J - Criminal Conduct: Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a
person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations.
Conditions pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying, as well as those which could mitigate security concerns, are set forth and discussed
in the conclusions below.
Since the protection of national security is the paramount consideration, the final decision
in each case must be reached by applying the standard that the issuance of the clearance is “clearly
consistent with the national interest.”   In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those15
conclusions that are based on the evidence contained in the record.
The Government is responsible for presenting evidence to establish facts in the SOR that
have been controverted. The applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain,
extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by the Government, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.
CONCLUSIONS
Financial Considerations
Between 1996 and 2004, Applicant accrued approximately $9,000 of delinquent debt, and
was charged criminally on 18 occasions for bouncing checks. Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) 19(c): a history of not meeting financial obligations, FC DC 19
(d): deceptive or illegal financial 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, and FC DC 19(e): consistent spending beyond one’s means, which may
be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-income ratio,
and/or other financial analysis, apply.
Although a divorce and a subsequent 15-month unemployment exacerbated Applicant’s
financial difficulties, Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) 20(b): the conditions
that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of
employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances) does not apply.
Applicant repeatedly wrote worthless checks knowing she had insufficient funds in her checking
account. Moreover, her first repossession occurred after her ex-husband had begun making steady
child support payments, and before she lost her job in 2003.
I have considered the remaining mitigating conditions, and conclude none apply. Applicant
has only resolved one delinquency, and admits that she has taken no action to resolve the two most
significant ones. Her contention that the remainders either are in dispute or have been satisfied was
unsupported by evidence. Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concern.
6
Personal Conduct
Applicant’s omission of the worthless check charges in response to Question 26 of the SOR
triggers the issue of whether Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) 16(a) applies as
follows: 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 security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities. Her credibility was undermined
by her contradictory explanations for the omissions. PC DC 16(a) applies without mitigation.
SOR subparagraph 2.b alleges that each worthless check charge constitutes a personal
conduct security concern in addition to a financial considerations security concern as cross-alleged
earlier. Such cross-alleging is redundant and unnecessary. Subparagraph 2.b represents an
unmitigated security concern for the same reasons as set forth in the Financial Considerations
section of the analysis.
Criminal Conduct
Applicant’s succession of worthless check charges and subsequent intentional omission of
them from her SF 86 generates a security concern under Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition
(CC DC) 31(a): A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses. Although Applicant acquired
overdraft protection to prevent writing worthless checks approximately four years ago, and has not
written one in nearly ten years, her more recent falsification of her security clearance application
generates lingering questions about her propensity to resort to criminal conduct when she finds it
expedient. None of the mitigating conditions apply.
Whole Person Concept
Applicant deserves credit for returning to college and earning a degree during the same time
she was raising her children and going through a divorce. This favorable evidence is outweighed
by her falsification of the SF 86, and her failure to take significant steps to address her delinquent
financial indebtedness. Clearance is denied.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1 – Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.t: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.u: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.v-1.aa: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2 - Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
7
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3 - Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b: Against 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.
Marc E. Curry
Administrative Judge