KEYWORD: Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant, who has a history of criminal behavior, falsified his answers to Questions 16
and20 on his Public Trust Position Application (SF-85P) by failing to acknowledge and list his past
criminal offenses and a debt of approximately $5,271 that was over 180 days delinquent.  He failed
to mitigate security concerns under Guidelines E and J.  Eligibility is denied.
CASENO: 06-17187.h1
DATE: 05/31/2007
DATE: May 31, 2007
In Re:
----------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-17187
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOAN CATON ANTHONY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Robert E. Coacher, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant, who has a history of criminal behavior, falsified his answers to Questions 16 and
See Memorandum from the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Counterintelligence and Security, dated
1
November 19, 2004, Subject: Adjudication of Trustworthiness Cases (directing DOHA to utilize Defense Department
Directive 5220.6 to resolve contractor cases forwarded to it for a trustworthiness determination, to include those cases
involving ADP I, II, and III positions).
See Memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, dated August 30, 2006, Subject:
2
Implementation of Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (December
29, 2005).
2
20 on his Public Trust Position Application (SF-85P) by failing to acknowledge and list his past
criminal offenses and a debt of approximately $5,271 that was over 180 days delinquent.  He failed
to mitigate security concerns under Guidelines E and J.  Eligibility is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In May 2003, Applicant executed and signed an application for a position of public trust (SF-
85P).  In September 2004, he executed and signed a second SF-85P application.  The Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) reviewed Applicant’s eligibility to occupy an automated data
processing (ADP) position designated as an ADP I, II, or III position to support a contract with the
Defense Department.  As a result of the review, the agency recommended Applicant’s case be
submitted to an administrative judge to determine whether Applicant is eligible to occupy such a
position.
Acting under Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended
(Directive), DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant on September 26, 2006.  1
The SOR details the factual basis for the action and alleges security concerns under Guidelines J and
E of the Directive.
In addition to the Directive, this case is brought under the revised Adjudicative Guidelines
for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (revised adjudicative guidelines)
approved by the President on December 29, 2005.  The revised adjudicative guidelines were then
modified by the Defense Department and promulgated, effective September 1, 2006.  They supercede
or replace the guidelines published in Enclosure 2 to the Directive and Appendix 8 to DoD
Regulation 5200.2-R, and they apply to all adjudications and other determinations where a SOR has
been issued on September 1, 2006, or thereafter.    The revised adjudicative guidelines apply to this2
case because the SOR is dated September 26, 2006, and this is an ADP I, II, III  trustworthiness
determination. A copy of the revised adjudicative guidelines was provided to Applicant along with
the SOR.
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on October 17, 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 January 8, 2007.  The FORM contained documents identified as Items 1
through 6.  By letter dated January 10, 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.
Guideline J DC E2.A10.1.2.1 reads: “Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the
3
person was formally charged.”  Guideline J  DC E2.A10.1.2.2. reads: “A single serious crime or multiple lesser
offenses.” Guideline E DC E2.A5.1.2.2. reads: “The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and
material 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.”
The applicable DCs under the revised Guideline J adjudicative guideline are found at ¶¶ 31(a) and 31(c). The
4
applicable DC under revised adjudicative Guideline E is found at ¶ 16(a).  Revised Guideline J ¶31(a) reads as follows:
“a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.”  Revised Guideline J ¶ 31(c)   reads as follows: “allegation or
admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or
convicted.”  Revised Guideline E ¶ 16(a) reads 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.”
3
Applicant received the file on January 17, 2007.  Applicant did not file any information within the
required time period. On May 2, 2007, the case was assigned to me for a decision.
RULINGS ON PROCEDURE
1.  The Government moved to amend SOR subparagraph 2.a. to delete the reference to
subparagraph 1.e.  In support of its motion, the Government noted that the incident referred to in
subparagraph 1.e. post-dates Applicant’s execution of the SF-85P alleged in the paragraph and
therefore could not be the source of a falsification allegation. Applicant was given notice of the
Government’s motion to amend and did not object.  Accordingly, for good cause shown, the
Government’s motion to amend the SOR is granted.
2. The Government’s argument in the FORM incorrectly references Guideline J Disqualifying
Condition (DC) E2.A10.1.2.1. and  DC E2.A10.1.2.2 and Guideline E DC E2.A5.1.2.2 . These3
disqualifying conditions were superceded by Guideline J and Guideline E revised adjudicative
guidelines, effective September 1, 2006, which apply to this case because the SOR was issued
September 26, 2006.   The record reflects that Applicant was given a copy of the applicable revised4
adjudicative guidelines and informed that they, and not the superceded guidelines, applied in his
case. He raised no objections or questions.  The wording and plain meaning of the relevant
provisions of the old and revised adjudicative guidelines are essentially the same.  Accordingly, I
find the Government’s citations to the old adjudicative guidelines in the Argument section of the
FORM arose from clerical mistake or oversight and caused Applicant no prejudice or harm.
Throughout this decision, revised adjudicative guidelines J and E, effective in all trustworthiness
adjudications in which a SOR was issued September 1, 2006, and thereafter, will be cited and
applied.   
FINDINGS OF FACT
The amended SOR contains five allegations of disqualifying conduct under Guideline J,
Criminal Conduct, and four allegations of disqualifying conduct under Guideline E, Personal
4
Conduct. (Item 1.) Applicant admitted all allegations in the SOR. (Item 3.)  His admissions are
incorporated herein as findings of fact.
Applicant is 40 years old, unmarried, and employed by a Defense contractor as a Claims
Analyst III.  He attended college for one year.  (Item 4.)
The Government alleged and Applicant admitted that on or about May 31, 1992, he was
arrested and charged with (1) Driving Under the Influence (DUI), (2) DUI with a blood alcohol
content of .10, (3) Speed Not Prudent to Avoid a Collision, and (4) No Proof of Insurance.
Applicant admitted he pled guilty to Counts (1) and (4) and that Counts (2) and (3) were dismissed.
The Government alleged Applicant was sentenced to 3 years probation, one day of jail time, and
restitution of $2,237.29, ordered to complete a substance abuse screening program, but failed to
comply. The Government further alleged that a probation revocation hearing was scheduled for May
31, 1993; that on May 31, 1994, a warrant was issued; that on July 30, 2003, the warrant was
quashed, and Applicant was reordered to a substance abuse program. The Government further
alleged Applicant failed to comply with the order; that a probation revocation hearing was set for
October 23, 2003; that Applicant failed to appear for the hearing, a warrant was issued, and as of
January 2005, the warrant was still active.  (Item 1; Amended SOR ¶ 1.a..) 
Applicant admitted he failed to comply with the order to complete a substance abuse
program.  He neither admitted nor denied the Government’s allegation that he was sentenced to 3
years probation, one day of jail time, and restitution of $2,237.29.  He neither admitted nor denied
knowledge of the probation revocation hearing scheduled for May 31, 1993, that a  warrant was
issued on May 31, 1994, that the warrant was quashed on July 31, 2003, and that he was again
ordered to a substance abuse program.  He denied knowledge of a probation revocation hearing set
for October 23, 2003, and admitted he failed to appear at the hearing.  He denied knowledge that a
warrant issued pursuant to his failure to appear was still active as of January 2005. (Item 3.)  The
Government produced no evidence to support the SOR allegations that Applicant denied, nor did it
produce evidence to support the allegations that he neither admitted nor denied.  
The Government alleged, and Applicant admitted, that on or about June 21, 1993, he was
cited for Indecent Exposure of the Genitals and that he pled No Contest to an amended charge of
Disturbing the Peace.  The Government further alleged Applicant was sentenced to one year
probation and ordered to complete a substance abuse program.  Applicant admitted he failed to
comply with the sentence to complete a substance abuse program.  He denied knowledge of a
probation revocation hearing set for June 15, 1994, and acknowledged he failed to appear. The
Government alleged, and Applicant neither admitted nor denied, that a warrant was subsequently
issued on June 15, 1994.   The Government alleged that, as of January 2005, the case was still open.
Applicant denied knowledge that the case was still open as of January 2005.  (Item 1; Amended SOR
¶ 1.b.; Item 3.)  The Government produced no evidence to support the SOR allegations that
Applicant denied, nor did it produce evidence to support the allegations that he neither admitted nor
denied.
The Government alleged, and Applicant admitted, that on about June 16, 1996, he was
arrested and charged with (1) DUI with a Prior and (2) DUI with a blood alcohol content of .10 or
higher. (Item 1; Amended SOR ¶ 1.c.; Item 3.)
5
The Government alleged, and Applicant admitted, that on about June 21, 1998, he was
arrested and charged with Failure to Appear/DUI,  posted bond, and was released. (Item 1; Amended
SOR ¶ 1.d.; Item 3.)
The Government alleged that on about July 6, 2003, Applicant was cited for (1) No Current
Registration and (2) No Valid Driver’s License and was fined $635.  The Government further alleged
that, as of February 8, 2005, the case was still open and Applicant owed $601.24.  (Item 1; Amended
SOR ¶ 1.e.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the citations for No Current Registration
and No Valid Driver’s License.  He stated the charges arose when he drove an intoxicated friend
home in the friend’s vehicle, and the friend did not have his vehicle registration in his car. Applicant
admitted he appeared before a judge.  He asserted he paid a fine for the citation of No Valid Driver’s
License and provided the court with a copy of his friend’s vehicle registration.  (Item 3.) Applicant
provided no evidence to support his assertion that he paid a fine or supplied his friend’s vehicle
registration to the court.  He denied awareness he still owed a fine or that the case was still open as
of February 8, 2005. (Item 3.)  The Government produced no evidence to support the SOR
allegations that Applicant denied.  
Applicant completed and certified a SF-85P on May 23, 2003.  Question 16 on the SF-85P
reads as follows: “16. 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
responded “no” to Question 16 and deliberately failed to list the information set forth in
subparagraphs 1.c. and 1.d. of the amended SOR.  (Item 1; Amended SOR ¶ 2.a.; Item 3.) )
On September 8, 2004, Applicant executed and certified a second SF-85P.  He again
responded “no” to Question 16 and  failed to list the citation and fine he received on about July 6,
2003, as alleged in ¶ 1.e. of the SOR  Applicant asserted his omission was “unknowing.”(Item 1,
Amended SOR ¶ 2.b.; Item 3.)  
On the SF-85P executed by Applicant on September 8, 2004, there appeared a Question 20,
which read as follows: “20. Your Financial Record - 180-Day Delinquencies 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 responded “no” to Question 20  failed to list a
debt to the U.S. Department of Education for a student loan of approximately $5,271.  Applicant
characterized his omission as a mistake. (Item 1, Amended SOR ¶  2.c.; Item 3.) 
The Government alleged that Applicant’s July 6, 2003, citation and subsequent fine for No
Current Registration and No Valid Driver’s License, demonstrated disqualifying conduct under
Guideline E. (Amended SOR ¶ 2.d.)  Applicant admitted the citations and the levy of a fine by the
court.  He asserted he had paid the fine and denied still owing money on the fine.  He also denied
knowing the case was still open, and he asserted he had mailed the court a copy of his friend’s
vehicle registration to rebut the citation for No Current Registration. (Item 3.)  He provided no
evidence to corroborate his statements that he had paid the fine and provided the court with a copy
of his friend’s vehicle registration.    
After executing his SF-85P applications in May 2003 and September 2004, Applicant signed
and dated the following certification:
These guidelines were amended and promulgated, effective September 1, 2006. 
5
6
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.)  (Item 4.)
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.   DoD5
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 revised adjudicative guideline  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) 31(a): a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses and DC 31(c):
allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged,
formally prosecuted or convicted.
Applicant admitted criminal conduct alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., and 1.d.  He also
admitted two lesser offenses, traffic violations, alleged at ¶ 1.e. of the SOR, for which he was fined
$635.  While Applicant admitted allegation 1.e., his admission is not enough to establish criminal
misconduct under Guideline J.  He admitted he twice failed to comply with a sentence to complete
a substance abuse screening program.  (¶¶ 1.a. and 1.b.)  He denied knowledge of and failing to
appear for probation revocation hearings in 1994 and 2003, and he denied knowledge of warrants
issued in May and June 1994 and October 2003 ordering him into a substance abuse screening
program. 
Applicant denied knowing he had been cited for failing to comply with the terms of his
probation, and the Government provided no evidence to support a conclusion that Applicant had
7
received notice of a probation revocation hearing in 1993 and a probation revocation hearing in
1994. Applicant also denied knowledge that his failure to appear for a probation revocation hearing
resulted in a warrant which was still active as of January 2005.  Applicant denied he still owed a fine
for two 2003 citations (No Current Registration and No Valid Driver’s License), but he failed to
provide evidence to corroborate his denial.  I conclude that the Government failed to prove Applicant
knew about his probation revocation hearings and their consequences.  However, Applicant’s
multiple criminal offenses and his admissions of criminal conduct raise concerns under revised
adjudicative Guideline J, ¶¶ 31(a) and 31(c).
Only two mitigating conditions under Guideline J might apply to the facts of Applicant’s
case.  Applicant’s admitted criminal conduct might be mitigated under Mitigating Condition (MC)
32(a) if he provided credible evidence to show that so much time has elapsed since the criminal
behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and
does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.  Applicant’s
admitted criminal activity spans a period of six years, from 1992 to 1998.  He provided no credible
evidence to substantiate a conclusion that he has complied with court orders to participate in a
substance abuse screening program.  His failure to comply with the court orders casts doubt on his
reliability, trustworthiness, and reliability and his ability to follow laws, rules and regulations.
Accordingly, I conclude MC 32(a) is inapplicable.  
Applicant’s admitted criminal conduct might be mitigated under MC 32(d) if he provided
evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited to the passage of time without
recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or restitution, job training or higher education, good
employment record, or constructive community involvement.  Applicant failed to show that
sufficient time had passed to reasonably conclude his criminal activity had ceased and would not be
repeated in the future. I conclude he failed to provide evidence of successful rehabilitation.
Accordingly, MC 32(d) does not apply. 
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
Personal 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.  Of special interest is any
failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process. Guideline E, ¶ 15.   
Under Guideline E, a security concern is raised by an individual’s 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. Guideline E, ¶ 16(a). 
Applicant executed and signed public trust position applications in May 2003 and September
2004.  After responding “no” to Question 16 on the SF-85P he executed in May 2003, Applicant
failed to list his arrest in about June 1996 for DUI with a Prior and DUI with a blood alcohol content
of .10 or higher.  He also failed to list his arrest in June 1998 and charge of Failure for Appear/DUI,
for which he posted bond and was released.  After responding “no”to Question 16 on the SF-85P he
executed in September 2004, Applicant failed to list his citation in July 2003 for (1) No Current
8
Registration and (2) No Valid Driver’s License.  After responding “no” to Question 20 on the SF-
85P he executed in September 2004, Applicant also failed to list and identify an education debt of
$5,271, which was more than 180 days delinquent.
Applicant admitted he deliberately falsified his answer to Question 16 on the SF-85P he
executed and signed in May 2003.  He characterized his falsification of his answer to question 16
on the SF-85P he executed in September 2004 as “unknowing”and provided no further explanation.
He characterized his falsification of his answer to Question 20 on the SF-85P he executed in
September 2004 as “mistaken” and provided no further explanation. 
The Government established a prima facie case that Applicant falsified his answers to
Questions 16 and 20 on his September 2004 SF-85P.  The burden of proof thus shifted to Applicant
to rebut or mitigate the Government’s allegations.  Applicant denied he deliberately falsified his
answers to the questions, but he provided no credible evidence in support of his denials.  
One Guideline E mitigating condition (MC) might be applicable to Applicant’s conduct.
Pursuant to MC 17(a),  personal conduct security concerns might be mitigated if the individual made
prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being
confronted with the facts. 
Applicant provided no credible evidence to mitigate his failure to list his arrests for criminal
conduct in June 1996 and June 1998 and his citations in 2003.  Additionally, he provided no credible
evidence for his failure to list his education debt that was over 180 days delinquent.  At the time he
completed his SF-85P applications, Applicant was a mature adult and a high school graduate.
Although he knew, or should have known, the importance of telling the truth to the Government, he
had reason to attempt to minimize his knowledge of his criminal conduct and his delinquent
education debt.  His denials that his falsifications were deliberate were not credible. He did not make
good-faith efforts to correct his omissions, concealment, or falsifications before being confronted
with the facts.  I conclude that MC 17(a) does not apply to the facts of Applicant’s case.
Additionally, DOHA alleged that Applicant’s 2003 citations for (1) No Current Registration
and (2) No Valid Driver’s License, alleged under the Criminal Conduct guideline, also raised
Guideline E security concerns. (See SOR ¶ 1.e.)  A security concern under Guideline E is raised by
[c]onduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations.  Such conduct can raise questions about an individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information.  Guideline E, ¶ 15. 
Applicant, who was not in possession of a valid driver’s license, drove another person’s
vehicle, which had no current registration.  Applicant’s admitted conduct demonstrated a disregard
for established rules and regulations related to the safe use of automobiles. While he asserted he
broke traffic safety rules to help an intoxicated friend, Applicant supplied no evidence to support his
assertion.  I conclude Applicant’s conduct raises a security concern under Guideline E, ¶ 15, about
his reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information.
One mitigating condition under Guideline E might apply to these facts.  Applicant’s conduct
might be mitigated if the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so
infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not
9
cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.  Guideline E, MC
17(c).
When viewed in light of Applicant’s several other admitted criminal offenses, Applicant’s
citations for (1) No Current Registration and (2) No Valid Driver’s License are less serious.
However, the conduct, which occurred in the recent past, reveals an unwillingness to comply with
rules and regulations and is supported by Applicant’s admitted criminal conduct dating from 1992.
Applicant supplied no credible evidence to support a conclusion that his rule-breaking conduct is
unlikely to recur.  Accordingly, MC 17(c) is inapplicable. 
Whole Person Analysis
In addition to evaluating the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each guideline,
an administrative judge must thoroughly consider and review of all available reliable information
about the appellant, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, to arrive at a balanced decision.
DoD Regulation 5200.2-R, Appendix 8, describes this process of scrutiny and evaluation 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 admissions and the record evidence establish a pattern of criminal conduct and
falsification that casts doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.
Applicant’s criminal conduct spans a period of 12 years, and he offered no evidence of rehabilitation,
casting doubt on his trustworthiness.  Finally, Applicant deliberately misled the Government
regarding his criminal conduct and his financial delinquencies.  These actions cast serious doubts
on his trustworthiness.
In ICR Case No. 98-0761 at 3 (Dec. 27, 1999), DOHA’s Appeal Board states that an
administrative judge, in deciding an Applicant’s security worthiness, “must consider the record as
a whole (Directive Section F.3.) and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the
unfavorable evidence, or vice versa.”  I have considered the record as a whole and have evaluated
Applicant’s conduct under the whole person concept of the Directive.  I conclude that Applicant has
not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns raised by the allegations in the SOR, and he has not
demonstrated that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for an ADP
I, II, or III position.
10
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SO:
Paragraph 1.: Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.d.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: For Applicant
Paragraph 2.: Guideline E.: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a. through 2.d.: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for an ADP I, II, or
III position.  Eligibility is denied.
Joan Caton Anthony
Administrative Judge