KEYWORD: Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: On or about January 21, 2005, Applicant was fired from a job for taking money, without
authorization, from her employer.  Subsequently, she lied about the firing on a Declaration for
Federal Employment, on a security clearance application (SF-86), executed in February 2005, and
in an interview with an authorized investigator.  Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns under
the Personal Conduct and Criminal Conduct adjudicative guidelines.  Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-19962.h1
DATE: 07/17/2007
DATE:  July 17, 2007
In Re:
--------------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-19962
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOAN CATON ANTHONY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
J. Theodore Hammer, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
On or about January 21, 2005, Applicant was fired from a job for taking money, without
authorization, from her employer.  Subsequently, she lied about the firing on a Declaration for
Federal Employment, on a security clearance application (SF-86), executed in February 2005, and
in an interview with an authorized investigator.  Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns under
the Personal Conduct and Criminal Conduct adjudicative guidelines.  Clearance is denied.
Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and1
modified.
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program2
(Jan. 2, 1992), as amended and modified.
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a security
clearance for Applicant.  On November 14, 2006, under the applicable Executive Order  and1
Department of Defense Directive,  DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis2
for its decision–security concerns raised under Adjudicative Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and J
(Criminal Conduct),  promulgated December 29, 2005, and applicable in DoD adjudications of SORs
issued as of September 1, 2006, and thereafter. With the SOR, DOHA provided Applicant with a copy
of DoD Directive 5220.6, as amended. 
On December 13, 2006, Applicant filed a notarized response to the SOR.  In her response, she
answered the Personal Conduct allegations (SOR ¶ 1) but did not answer the Criminal Conduct
allegation (SOR ¶ 2).  She requested her case be determined on the record in lieu of a hearing.  The
Government compiled its File of Relevant Material (FORM) on April 17, 2007.  The FORM contained
documents identified as Items 1 through 8.  Item 8 of the FORM was a copy of the Department of
Defense Directive incorporating the applicable Adjudicative Guidelines.
On April 20, 2007, Applicant was sent a copy of the FORM, with instructions to file objections
and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Personal Conduct and Criminal Conduct
disqualifying conditions within 30 days of receipt.  On April 23, 2007, Applicant signed an
acknowledgment of receipt of the FORM.  She did not submit any information within the 30-day time
period.  On June 28, 2007, the case was assigned to me for a decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The SOR contains five allegations under Guideline E,  Personal Conduct, and one allegation
under Guideline J, Criminal Conduct.  Applicant admitted all five Guideline E allegations.  She did
not address the Guideline J allegation, which identified three of the Guideline E allegations as criminal
conduct pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1001.  I interpret Applicant’s failure to respond to the Criminal
Conduct allegations in the SOR as a general denial of the allegations.  Applicant’s admissions are
incorporated herein as findings of fact.  (Item 6, Item 7.)
Applicant is 24 years old, unmarried,  and employed as a staff auditor by a defense contractor.
She graduated from college in May 2005 and holds a bachelor of science degree in accounting. (Item
2, Item 4.)
From March 2003 until about January 21, 2005, Applicant was employed as a
bartender/waitress at a club in a resort community.  She ran low on money and was overdue on a
3
payment owed to her personal trainer.  In order to pay her debt to the trainer, Applicant took $120 from
her employer’s petty cash bag without the employer’s permission.  She left a note in the petty cash bag
explaining she had taken the money and planned to pay it back.  Applicant’s unauthorized use of the
employer’s petty cash was a violation of company policy.  She was fired for theft by the employer on
about January 21, 2005.  (Item 2, Item 5, Item 7.)  (SOR ¶ 1.a.)
In her notarized answer to the SOR, Applicant stated:
I was indeed fired from my employment with [Employer] for theft.  I
had endured a financial hardship I had never experienced before.  I did
take some money from the petty cash bag so I could pay a bill but I had
every intention to give it back.   I did indeed pay back the money;
however, my employer made the decision to terminate my employment
anyways.  (Item 7 at 2.)
On January 25, 2005, Applicant signed a Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form
306 (OF 306).  Question 11 on the OF 306 reads as follows: 
During the last 5 years, were you fired from any job for any reason, did
you quit after being told that you would be fired, did you leave any job
by mutual agreement because of specific problems, or were you
debarred from Federal employment by the Office of Personnel
Management?  If “Yes, use Item 15 to provide the date, an explanation
of the problem and reason for leaving, and the employer’s name and
address.
Appellant responded “no” to Question 11, and she failed to list the fact she had been fired for
theft on or about January 21, 2005.  (Item 1.) ( SOR ¶ 1.b.)  After executing the OF 306, Applicant
signed and dated the following certification, which appears as Item 16 on the OF 306:
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all of the
information on and attached to this Declaration for Federal
Employment, including any attached application materials, is true,
correct, complete, and made in good faith.  I understand that a false or
fraudulent answer to any question on any part of this declaration or its
attachments may be grounds for not hiring me, or for firing me after I
begin to work, and may be punishable by fine or imprisonment.
On February 2, 2005, Appellant sought employment with  Department of Defense agency A.
She executed and signed a security clearance application (SF-86).  Question 20 on the SF-86 reads as
follows:
Your Employment Record
Has any of the following happened to you in the past 7 years?
–Fired from a job
–Quit a job after being told you’d be fired
In her signed affidavit, executed in June 2005, Applicant asserted that when she executed her SF-86 on3
February 2, 2005, she was still employed by her employer and had not yet been fired.  In her response to SOR allegation
1.a., Applicant admitted she was fired by her employer for theft on January 21, 2005. (Item 5; ITem 7.)
4
–Left a job by mutual agreement following allegations of misconduct
–Left a job by mutual agreement following allegations of unsatisfactory performance
–Left a job for other reason under unfavorable circumstances
Appellant responded “no” to Question 20.    Item 43 on the SF-86 is entitled “General3
Remarks” and asks: “Do you have any additional remarks to enter in your application?”  Applicant
responded “yes” to Item 43 and stated: “In reference to my credit card debt I am trying to get both of
those debts settled.  As a full time student I only work part time so it is going to be a few months
before I can settle them.” (Item 2 at 5-6, 9.)
After executing the SF-86, Applicant signed and dated the following certification:
CERTIFICATION BY PERSON COMPLETING FORM
My statement 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 2.) (SOR ¶¶ 1.c., 2.a.)
Applicant was subject to a security investigation, as she was under consideration for a position
that required eligibility for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).  She was
interviewed by a Department of Defense authorized investigator on April 28, 2005.  In response to
questions about leaving her bartender/waitress job with the club at the resort, Applicant stated she left
the job because she was not making enough money.  She also stated she had no problems in that
employment and received no disciplinary actions   (Item 3.)  She failed to disclose she had been fired
from the job for stealing her employer’s money.  (SOR ¶ 1.d.)
On June 3, 2005, Applicant was interviewed again by an authorized investigator of the U.S.
Office of Personnel Management.  Pursuant to that interview, she signed an affidavit admitting she had
been fired from her bartended/waitress job for stealing money from her employer to pay her personal
trainer.  She attributed her failure to admit she had been fired in her April 2005 interview to
nervousness. (Item 5.)
Defense agency A served Applicant with a statement of reasons and an undated memorandum
stating its intent TO deny her eligibility for access to SCI, due, in part, to her personal conduct and the
fact she failed to disclose she had been fired from her job in January 2005 for unlawfully taking money
Because Agency A’s letter of intent and statement of reasons are not dated, it is unclear whether Applicant4
withdrew her application before or after receiving these communications.
5
from her employer.  On or about February 7, 2006, Applicant withdrew her application for eligibility
for access to SCI as an employee of agency A.   (Item 3, Item 7.)  (SOR ¶ 1.e.)4
Applicant sought employment with a federal contractor.  As a part of her employment process,
she executed, signed, and certified a second SF-86 on July 1, 2005.  She again responded “no” to
Question 20, which asked whether she had ever been fired from any job in the last seven years. (Item
4)
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant asserted her belief she was a person of integrity who had
made a bad decision and that “[her] continuous unwillingness to disclose information regarding [her]
previous employment is not a reflection of [her] character.” (Item 7.) 
POLICIES
“[No one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,
528 (1988).  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 coercion, and willingness and ability to abide by
regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information.”  Exec. Or. 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.  
By Memorandum dated August 30, 2006, the Under Secretary of Defense directed
implementation of revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified
Information, promulgated December 29, 2005, and effective September 1, 2006, as modified. The
revised Adjudicative Guidelines replaced the guidelines published in Enclosure 2 to DoD Directive
5220.6 and Appendix 8 to DoD 5200.2-R, and they apply to all adjudications and other determinations
in which a SOR had not been issued by September 1, 2006.  Accordingly, since the SOR in this case
was issued November 14, 2006, the revised Adjudicative Guidelines apply.
The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth personal security guidelines, as well as the
disqualifying conditions  and mitigating conditions under each guideline.  In evaluating the security
worthiness of an applicant, the administrative judge must also assess the adjudicative process factors
listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive.  The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not
necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant.  See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.  It is merely
an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of
Defense have established for issuing a security clearance.
6
Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal
or professional history of the applicant that disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being
eligible for access to classified information.  See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.  The Directive presumes a
nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the disqualifying conditions listed
in the guidelines and an applicant’s security suitability.  See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd.
May 2, 1996).  
Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden
shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.  ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at
3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002); see Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of
demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance.”  ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3.
CONCLUSIONS
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.   
Applicant completed and signed a OF 306 on January 25, 2005.  On that form, in response to
Question 11, she denied being fired from a job in the previous five years.  On February 2, 2005, 
Applicant executed, signed, and certified a SF-86.  In her response to Question 20 on both versions
of the SF-86, Applicant denied being fired from a job in the past seven years.  When she was
interviewed by an authorized investigator in April 2005, Applicant lied about her reason for leaving
the job from which she had been fired.  She said she left the job because it did not pay her enough, and
she denied she had any problems with or disciplinary actions from her employer.  Then, in a signed
affidavit witnessed by an authorized investigator in June 2005, Applicant admitted taking $120 from
her employer’s petty cash, which violated the employer’s policy, and being fired because she took the
employer’s money without authorization.  Through Applicant’s admissions and the record evidence,
the Government established a prima facie case that Applicant falsified her answers to Question 11 on
the OF-306, to Question 20 on the SF-86, and to the investigator’s inquiries what caused her to leave
her job on January 21, 2005.  The burden of proof thus shifted to Applicant to rebut or mitigate the
Government’s allegations.  Applicant admitted the falsifications and attributed them in part to
nervousness.  She asserted she was a person of reliable character who had made a bad decision. 
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’s admitted conduct also raises
security concerns under Guideline E Disqualifying Conditions (DC) 16(b), and 16 (e)(1).  DC 16(b)
reads as follows: deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to
DC 31(c) reads: “allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally5
charged, formally prosecuted or convicted.” 
7
an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official government
representative. DC 16(e)(1) reads as follows: personal conduct, or concealment of information about
one’s conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such as (1)
engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s personal, professional, or community
standing.  
Two Guideline E mitigating conditions (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.  Pursuant to MC 17(e), personal conduct security concerns might be
mitigated if the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation,
manipulation, or duress.
Applicant provided no credible evidence to mitigate her failure to disclose she had been fired
for theft on her OF 306 and SF-86.  Applicant was a mature adult with a college education when she
failed to disclose she had been fired for cause. Although she knew, or should have known, the
importance of telling the truth to the Government, she had reason to attempt to conceal this derogatory
information about her trustworthiness.  Her assertions that her falsifications were due to nervousness
were not credible. She did not make good-faith efforts to correct her omissions, concealment, or
falsifications before being confronted with the facts, and she did not take positive steps to reduce or
eliminate the vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress caused by her concealment of this
derogatory information relating to her lack of trustworthiness.  I conclude that MC 17(a) and MC 17(e)
do not apply to the facts of Applicant’s case.
Guideline J - Criminal Conduct
Applicant falsified her response to Question 11 on her January 25, 2005 OF 306 by denying
she had been fired from a job in the past five years.  She also falsified her response to Question 20 on
the SF-86 she executed, signed, and certified on February 2, 2005 by  denying she had been fired from
a job in the past seven years. She deliberately concealed this information from an authorized
investigator in a security interview. She failed to offer credible information in mitigation or to rebut
the Government’s prima facie case that her falsifications were deliberate and therefore criminal
conduct under 18 U.S.C. section 1001.
Criminal conduct creates a security concern because it raises doubts about an individual’s
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.  Additionally, it raises doubts about a person’s ability or
willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.  Applicant’s admitted criminal activity raises
security concerns under Disqualifying Condition (DC) 31(c)  of Guideline J.5
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
she 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.  MC 32(d) might apply
8
if there is 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’s criminal behavior took place in January 2005, approximately 2 ½ years ago.  She
perpetuated the criminal conduct by lying on her OF 306 and SF-86 and by lying to an authorized
investigator in April 2005.  It wasn’t until she was interviewed a second time by an authorized
investigator in June 2005 that she admitted her criminal conduct.  Applicant’s criminal conduct is
recent and it casts doubt on her reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  She provided no
credible evidence that her conduct would not recur. In her answer to the SOR, Applicant continued to
insist upon her good character and trustworthiness, but she provided no credible evidence that she
comprehended the seriousness of her actions and she failed to offer evidence of successful
rehabilitation.  Applicant’s criminal conduct raises serious doubts not only about her reliability,
trustworthiness, and good judgment but also about her ability to follow laws, rules, and regulations.
Applicant failed to provide credible evidence under MC 32(a) and MC 32(d) to mitigate the criminal
conduct alleged in the SOR.  No other MCs apply.
Whole Person Analysis
In addition to evaluating the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each guideline, an
administrative judge must thoroughly consider and review all available reliable information about the
appellant, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, to arrive at a balanced decision.  DoD Directive
5220.6, as amended, 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.
I do not find, under a whole person analysis, that Applicant’s decision to withdraw her
application for access to SCI with Agency A reflected negatively on her personal conduct under
Guideline E.  Accordingly, I find for Applicant on SOR allegation 1.e.
Applicant is well-educated and holds a college degree.  Her admissions and the record
evidence establish she took money from her employer and was fired for doing so.  She deliberately
falsified  her OF 306 and SF-86 by concealing her criminal conduct and its consequences—being fired
from her job.  She signed her name and certified that her statements on her OF 306 and SF-86 were
“true, complete, and correct to the best of [her] knowledge and belief and. . . made in good faith.”  She
then concealed her criminal conduct from an authorized investigator in a security interview.  These
actions cast serious doubts on her security worthiness.
Because the federal government has a compelling interest in protecting classified information,
it must be able to place a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals granted access to classified
information.  An applicant who deliberately tries to deceive or mislead the federal government does
not demonstrate the high degree of judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of those granted
access to classified information
9
In ISCR 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 neither
rebutted nor mitigated the security concerns raised by the allegations in the SOR, and she has not
demonstrated that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her a security clearance.
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1.: Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: For Applicant
Paragraph 2.: Guideline J.: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: 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 a security clearance for Applicant.  Clearance
is denied.
Joan Caton Anthony
Administrative Judge