KEYWORD:  Criminal Conduct; Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Security concerns of criminal conduct, financial considerations, and personal conduct were
identified during Applicant’s background investigation for a security clearance.  These concerns
surfaced following the uncovering of several misdemeanor arrests, 15 unpaid debts, and the belief
Applicant had failed to disclose misdemeanor arrests.  Applicant has successfully mitigated all these
concerns.  Clearance is granted.   
CASENO: 05-11343.h1
DATE: 06/21/2007
DATE:  June 21, 2007
In Re:
-----------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 05-11343
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
ROBERT J. TUIDER
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Emilio Jaksetic, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Pursuant to Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended1
and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program  (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended and modified.  Concerning the security guidelines, this case is brought under the
revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information approved by the
President on December 29, 2005.  The revised guidelines were then modified by the Defense Department, effective
September 1, 2006.  They supersede or replace the guidelines published in Enclosure 2 to the Directive and Appendix
8 to DoD Regulation 5200.2-R.  They apply to all adjudications and other determinations where an SOR has been issued
on September 1, 2006 or thereafter, and they apply to this case because the SOR is dated October 11, 2006.  Both the
Directive and the Regulation are pending final amendment.
2
Security concerns of criminal conduct, financial considerations, and personal conduct were
identified during Applicant’s background investigation for a security clearance.  These concerns
surfaced following the uncovering of several misdemeanor arrests, 15 unpaid debts, and the belief
Applicant had failed to disclose misdemeanor arrests.  Applicant has successfully mitigated all these
concerns.  Clearance is granted.  
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
security clearance for Applicant.  On October 11, 2006, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons
(SOR)  detailing the basis for its decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal1
Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the
Directive.  Applicant answered the SOR in writing on November 3, 2006, and elected to have a
hearing before an administrative judge.  
The case was assigned to me on December 15, 2006.  On January 5, 2007, DOHA issued a
notice of hearing scheduling a hearing for January 22, 2007.  The hearing was conducted as
scheduled to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue
a security clearance for Applicant.  
The government offered 15 documents, which were admitted without objection as
Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 15.  The Applicant offered 4 documents, which were admitted
without objection as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A through D.  The Applicant timely submitted four
post-hearing documents, which admitted without objection as AE E through H.  DOHA received the
transcript on January 31, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant’s admissions to the SOR allegations are incorporated herein.  In addition, after a
thorough review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact:
Applicant testified at his hearing and I found his testimony credible.
Applicant is a 33-year-old sensor systems engineer employed by a defense contractor since
The court record did not specify the length of time his license was suspended.  GE 4.2
3
November 2003.  He seeks a security clearance as a requirement of his employment.  He is
unmarried with no dependents.  He served on active duty in the Navy from January 1996 to January
2001, and was honorably discharged as a Sonar Technician Second Class, pay grade E-5.  He
previously held a security clearance at the secret level while in the Navy.
While Applicant was in the Navy, he was arrested in December 1999 for driving under the
influence (DUI), a misdemeanor under applicable state law.  His case was continued because he was
forward deployed and when he appeared in court in December 2000, he was found guilty, and
sentenced to 30 days in jail, suspended for 30 days, fined $250.00 and ordered to pay court costs of
$40.00.  Additionally, his driver’s license was suspended , and he was ordered to complete an2
alcohol education program (SOR ¶ 1.a.).  Tr. 20-23, 32-35, 41-43.  
In December 2000, Applicant was charged with show cause, a misdemeanor under applicable
state law (SOR ¶ 1.b.).  There was apparently some confusion regarding the court date when
Applicant was to appear for his December 1999 DUI charge and on June 2002, he was found guilty
of this charge and sentenced in absentia.  Applicant is of the belief this was ultimately “dropped.”
Tr. 23.  Source documents offer two dispositions – “Dismissed” and “Guilty in Absentia.”  GE 6.
The government was unable to clarify this point.  Tr.  43-47.
In March 2001, after Applicant was discharged from the Navy, he along with fellow
employees were attending off-site job-related training.  The driver of the company-rented mini van
was pulled over and charged with DUI and the passengers to include Applicant in the mini van were
all cited for open container in a vehicle after the arresting officer noticed empty beer cans in the
vehicle (SOR ¶ 1.c.).  Following this citation, Applicant paid a $200.00 fine.  The government’s
evidence indicated this citation was a vehicle infraction versus a criminal offense under applicable
state law.  Tr. 17-18, 23-25, 40.
In November 2003 Applicant attended a bachelor party and was tasked during a scavenger
hunt to obtain “the coolest license plate [he] could find.”  When he located a license plate meeting
the specifications of his tasking, he was caught by the police removing a license plate from a vehicle
and charged with petit larceny, a misdemeanor under applicable state law (SOR ¶ 1.d.)  He was
sentenced to ten days in jail, suspended for ten days, fined $100.00 and ordered to pay court costs
of $64.00.  Tr. 25, 38-40, GE 7.  
In December 2003, Applicant was charged with driving on suspended license, a misdemeanor
under applicable state law (SOR ¶ 1.e.).  This charged stemmed from the suspension he received
from his December 2000 conviction for his December 1999 DUI arrest.  He pled guilty to the charge
and was sentenced to ten days in jail, suspended for ten days, fined $100.00 and ordered to pay court
costs of $64.00.  Tr. 25-26, GE 8.
In March 2005, Applicant was charged with driving on suspended license, a misdemeanor
under applicable state law (SOR ¶ 1.f.).  Apparently, Applicant had some confusion regarding his
driver license suspension stemming from his December 1999 DUI charge.  He was charged with
show cause for failure to appear on May 10, 2005.  On the day of his court date, he was admitted to
the emergency room for chest pain, headaches, and dizziness and submitted documentation from the
4
hospital verifying he was admitted.  Tr. 25-26, 28-31, Answer to SOR.  Applicant reported all
problems with his driver’s license had been “cleared up” and that his license was no longer under
suspension adding that he used his valid driver’s license to gain access to the building where his
DOHA hearing was being conducted.  Tr. 26, 35-38.  
The SOR alleges Applicant is in arrears on 15 debts (SOR ¶¶ 2.a. through 2.o.).  These debts
are in various stages of repayment or being challenged and all of them are being addressed.
Applicant submitted a letter to the cognizant credit reporting agency and is disputing the following
five debts listed in SOR ¶¶ - 2.a. (collection account $239.00), 2.c. (collection account $102.00), 2.d.
(returned check charge $2.00), SOR ¶ 2.e. (collection account $102.00), 2.f. (collection account
$387.00), and 2.k. (collection account $23.00).  Answer to SOR, Tr. 47-54, 61, 64-69, 83-84, 86-87,
AE E.  His reasons for disputing the debts include that certain accounts are not his, he was unable
to contact creditor, and the account has been paid.  Applicant’s evidence supports the notion these
disputes with creditors are made in good faith.
The debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 2.h. ($386.00 to pay court fine in SOR ¶ 1.d.) and 2.j.($288.00
medical bill) were resolved through garnishment in 2004 and 2005 respectively.  Applicant did not
have the funds to pay these bills when due given his state of underemployment and
underemployment at the time.  Answer to SOR, Tr. 54, 56-58, 73-75, 88.
Applicant has sought the services of a credit counseling service and set up payment plans to
address debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 2.b. (charged off account $2,484.00), 2.g. (collection account
$5,966.00), 2.i. (collection account $165.00), 2.n. (collection account $419.00), and 2.o. (collection
account $253.00).  He had paid debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 2.f. (collection account $387.00), 2.l.
(delinquent account $2,297.00), and 2.m. (delinquent account $1,315.00).  Answer to SOR, Tr. 48,
59-61, 64, 68-71, 84, 87-90, AE B, AE F, AE G.
Applicant attributes his financial problems to a periods of underemployment and
unemployment after he was discharged from the Navy in 2001.  Until he secured his present position
in November 2003, he held several low paying jobs to include front desk motel clerk and bartender,
plus two periods of unemployment.  GE 1.  Tr. 60, 88-89.
In August 2004, Applicant submitted a security clearance application and was cited in SOR
¶¶ 3.a., and 3.b. for failing to list his March 2001 citation for open container (SOR ¶ 1.c.
Alcohol/Drug Offenses), and for failing to list his November 2003 arrest for petit larceny (SOR ¶
1.d.), and his December 2003 charge of driving on suspended license (SOR ¶ 1.e.) (Police
Record/Other Offenses).  In response to Alcohol/Drug Offenses, he did list a more serious 2001
charge of driving under the influence.  
Applicant concedes the information he failed to list on his security clearance application as
alleged was not listed.  He explained when he was initially hired in November 2003, he completed
a security clearance application at that time and the underlying petit larceny arrest and driving on
suspended license charge had not occurred.  He added for some reason, his employer wanted to
resubmit his security clearance application in August 2004 (GE 1).  When that occurred, he signed
an application in August 2004 and apparently failed to review and check the form he previously
completed when hired for accuracy.  Regarding his failure to list the March 2001 citation for open
container, he stated, “It was just simply a citation that I paid that I had honestly forgotten about. . .
5
I wasn’t trying to - I mean admitted to the DUI, the other things on my SF-86.  It’s just simply one
that I did not remember.”  
Applicant did submit post-hearing a copy of the security clearance application he submitted
when hired bearing the date of December 4, 2003, which approximates the time he was initially
hired.  AE H.  Although unsigned, I do not view the absence of a signature as unusual given the fact
it is his file copy.  I did find Applicant’s testimony on this point to be credible.  Tr. 93-97, 103-107.
Applicant readily clarified this discrepancy when later interviewed the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) investigator.  Tr. 96-97, GE 2.
Applicant submitted two letters of reference.  The first letter is from a former Navy
supervisor who served with him on board his ship.  This supervisor spoke of Applicant’s
dependability especially during emergencies.  He described his as the “first to volunteer, whenever
we were short a man, or needed an extra watch stander, he was always willing to give of himself.”
AE C.  The second letter is from his current supervisor.  She stated Applicant “always displayed a
high degree of integrity, responsibility and ambition.”  She considers Applicant to be a “valuable
resource” and a “dependable team player.”  AE D.
POLICIES
The adjudicative guidelines in the Directive are not a set of inflexible rules of procedure.
Instead, they are to be applied by administrative judges on a case-by-case basis with an eye toward
making determinations that are clearly consistent with the interests of national security.  In making
overall common sense determinations, administrative judges must consider, assess, and analyze the
evidence of record, both favorable and unfavorable, not only with respect to the relevant adjudicative
guidelines, but in the context of factors set forth in section E 2.2.1. of the Directive.  The government
has the burden of proving any controverted fact(s) alleged in the SOR, and the facts must have a
nexus to an applicant's lack of security worthiness.
The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept. All available, reliable
information about the person, past and present, is to be taken into account in reaching a decision as
to whether a person is an acceptable security risk.  Although the presence or absence of a particular
condition for or against clearance is not determinative, the specific adjudicative guidelines should
be followed whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance.
BURDEN OF PROOF
As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,
528 (1988), “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” As Commander in Chief, the President has
“the authority to . . . control access to information bearing on national security and to determine
whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position . . . that will give that person
access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has restricted eligibility for access to classified
information to “United States citizens . . . whose personal and professional history affirmatively
indicates loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability,
discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for
6
coercion, and willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and
protection of classified information.”  Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information §
3.1(b) (Aug. 4, 1995). Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting
the security guidelines contained in the Directive.
Initially, the government must establish, by substantial evidence, that conditions exist in the
personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant
from being eligible for access to classified information. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. All that is
required is proof of facts and circumstances which indicate an applicant is at risk for mishandling
classified information, or that an applicant does not demonstrate the high degree of judgment,
reliability, or trustworthiness required of persons handling classified information. Where the facts
proven by the government raise doubts about an applicant's judgment, reliability or trustworthiness,
then the applicant has the ultimate burden of establishing his security suitability with substantial
evidence in explanation, mitigation, extenuation, or refutation, sufficient to demonstrate that despite
the existence of guideline conduct, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or
continue his security clearance. 
Security clearances are granted only when “it is clearly consistent with the national interest
to do so.”  See Executive Orders 10865 § 2 and 12968 § 3.1(b). “Any doubt as to whether access to
classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the
national security.” Directive ¶ E2.2.2 “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security
clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.
Doubts are to be resolved against the applicant.
CONCLUSIONS
Guideline J – Criminal Conduct
Under Guideline J for criminal conduct, a security concern arises by:
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.
The government established its case under Guideline J to SOR ¶¶ 1.a., 1.d., and 1.e.  The
government’s evidence relating to the December 2000 show cause charge alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b. is
conflicting inasmuch as source documents reflect two separate dispositions, i.e. dismissed and guilty
in absentia.  Applicant is of the belief the charge was “dropped.”  The government was unable to
resolve this discrepancy following Applicant’s constructive denial.  As such I resolve SOR ¶ 1.b. in
Applicant’s favor.  The government’s evidence relating to SOR ¶ 1.c. indicates this allegation was
a traffic offense under applicable state law versus a criminal offense, and the March 2005 charge of
driving on suspended license (SOR ¶ 1.f) was apparently dismissed.  Applicant submitted competent
evidence that he was in the emergency room for his May 2005 show cause/failure to appear hearing
(SOR ¶ 1.f.), and Applicant has demonstrated his problems with the state licensing authority have
been resolved.  I find in Applicant’s favor for SOR ¶¶ 1.c. and 1.f.
7
The remaining allegations relate to his December 1999 arrest for DUI (SOR ¶1.a.), his
November 2003 arrest for petit larceny (SOR ¶ 1.d.), and his December 2003 charge for driving on
a suspended license (SOR ¶ 1.e.).  These charges are all misdemeanors under the applicable state
statute.  Collectively, they raise potential disqualifying conditions under Criminal Conduct
Disqualifying Condition (CC DC) 31(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.  Seven
years have elapsed since Applicant’s DUI charge in December 1999.  Although his citation for open
container in March 2001 is an alcohol-related offense, it does not rise to the level of a DUI.  These
remaining charges do not reflect a repetitive nature and his driving on suspended license problems
all stem from his December 1999 DUI arrest.  
Applicant acknowledges his November 2003 petit larceny arrest was a “very stupid mistake.”
He did not unjustly gain from this “larceny” and understands his sophomoric act is unacceptable
behavior.  He has fully complied with all sentencing requirements.  I do not believe from his
demeanor that he is likely to repeat any similar acts and given his current status and realizing such
behavior has lasting consequences.  Under these facts, I am unable to apply to SOR ¶ 1.a. Criminal
Conduct Mitigating Conditions (CC MC) 32(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal
behavior happened, . . . that it is unlikely to recur an does not cast doubt on the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.  To the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.d. and 1.e. CC MD
32(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation, including but not limited to the passage of time
without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or restitution, not training or higher education,
good employment record, or constructive community involvement.
Guideline F – Financial Considerations
Under Guideline F for financial considerations, a security concern arises by:
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.  An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage
in illegal acts to generate funds.  
The government established its case under Guideline F to SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.o. by
evidence submitted as well as Applicant’s admissions.  These facts give rise to Financial
Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) 18(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;
and FC DC 18(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.
After five years of active duty in the Navy, Applicant found the transition to civilian life to
be challenging.  He struggled and during that time, he found himself underemployed and
unemployed.  It took him almost three years to find a career field that is compatible with his skill set
and pays him a competitive salary.  Now that he is making a living wage, he is able to pay his bills
and remain current.  He has successfully mitigated all debts alleged by either disputing them, making
payment arrangements, or paying them off.  
Additionally, Applicant has secured the services of a credit counseling service to address the
majority of his debts and with their assistance established a budget.  Applicant’s budget reflects he
8
is living within his means, paying down his past debts, and managing his finances in a responsible
manner.
Under the facts presented, I have reviewed the mitigating conditions under Guideline F and
am able to apply MC 20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond
the person’s control (e.g., . . . los of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical
emergency, . . .) and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; MC 20(c) the person
has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the
problem is being resolved or is under control; MC 20(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort
to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts, MC(e) the individual has a reasonable basis
to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve
the issue.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
Under Guideline E for Personal Conduct, a security concern arises by:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations 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.
Posing potential security concerns are Applicant’s documented omission of past criminal
conduct by failing to disclose his March 2001 citation for open container, which was determined to
be a traffic offense versus a criminal offense under applicable state law, and his November 2003
arrest for petit larceny and December 2003 charge for driving on suspended license. 
Applicant testified credibly these omissions were an honest mistake.  His testimony is further
bolstered by the fact he disclosed the more serious offense of his December 1999 DUI arrest and his
having credibly testified and established by documentary evidence that the later two offenses
occurred after he submitted the first draft of his security clearance application when initially hired.
Applicant’s failure in this regard appears to have failed to carefully review his security clearance
application when it was resubmitted in August 2004.  While Applicant could reasonably have been
expected to be more diligent in ensuring his application was complete in all respects, his judgment
lapses are not enough to impute knowing and wilful falsification under Guideline E.
In reaching my decision I have applied the facts and circumstances presented in this case
using the “whole person” concept as required by the Directive.  I have specifically considered
Applicant’s five years of honorable service in the Navy forward deployed, the fact he successfully
held a security clearance at the secret level while in the Navy, and the fact he is making all
reasonable efforts to achieve financial stability.  His apparent success in his new career field is
further evidence of rehabilitation.
FORMAL FINDINGS
9
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1.  Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a.-1.f. For Applicant
Paragraph 2.  Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a.-2.o.: For Applicant
Paragraph 3.  Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a.-1.b.: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.  Clearance is
granted.
Robert J. Tuider
Administrative Judge