DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February1
20, 1990), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program  (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the revised adjudicative
guidelines (RAG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
                                                          )            ISCR Case No. 07-10256
SSN:                     )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Emilio Jaksetic, Esquire, Department Counsel
Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
On 9 November 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guidelines J and F.  Applicant answered the SOR 19 by an undated letter received by1
DOHA 11 December 2007, and requested a hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me
10 January 2008, and I convened a hearing 6 February 2008. DOHA received the
transcript (Tr.) 19 February 2008.
 
Although Applicant’s credit report (G.E. 2) reflects the two alleged debts, Applicant’s evidence indicates that the2
debts at SOR 2.a. (A.E. B) and SOR 2.b. (A.E. C) were posted to the credit report in error.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the Guideline J SOR allegation. Accordingly, I incorporate his
admission as fact. He denied the Guideline F allegations.  He is a 45-year-old chief2
financial officer (CFO) employed by a defense contractor since January 2007. He has
not previously held a clearance. He has been married over 20 years and has six
children.
For about two years before May 2005, Applicant misappropriated approximately
$8,500 from the cash accounts of his employer, a small, private, Christian college. He
was able to accomplish this misappropriation—mostly money from campus vending
machines—because of his position as vice president for administration and chief
financial officer, a position he had reached after more than 20 years at the college.
Applicant used the money to supplement the per diem of the college’s traveling teams’
members, both athletic and academic, to provide short-term loans to low income
employees of the college, and—occasionally—to buy himself fast-food meals on nights
he was working late. In the past, he had supplemented the per diem and made loans
out of his own pocket. Sometimes the loans were paid, sometimes not. Aside from the
occasional fast-meal, he never used the money for personal gain.
Applicant attributed his misappropriations to the stresses of dealing with the tight
finances of the college, dealing with the tight finances of the city where he then served
as a city council member, and the debilitating final illness of his mother. He also
admitted his sense of entitlement/self-pity born of a lifetime of commitment to the
college and his frustration over what he considered some poor financial and personnel
decisions of the college president. Notwithstanding his motivations, he categorically
insisted that these did not justify his conduct.
In May 2005, Applicant went to the college president and advised him of the
misappropriated funds. He was largely motivated to confess by his guilty conscience,
but also by his knowledge that new auditors would uncover the cash shortages.
Applicant had been pressing the college for five years to replace auditors he considered
sloppy and incompetent, and had finally succeeded in getting the college to hire his
recommended auditors. Applicant made restitution to the college, and resigned. The
governing body of the college voted to take no civil or criminal action against Applicant.
In June 2005, Applicant went to work as a consultant on an auditing project (G.E.
1). He told the certified public accountant (CPA) who hired him about his misconduct
during his interview for the job. Nevertheless, she trusted him with access to company
proprietary information and now recommends him for access to classified information.
She considers his misconduct a one-time lapse (A.E. B). She recommended him to her
sister and brother-in-law when the company they own (Applicant’s current employer)
needed a CFO, knowing that the company handled classified contracts.
3
Similarly, the college president (and former vice president for academic affairs)
who accepted Applicant’s resignation has known Applicant since 1984, considers the
circumstances leading to his resignation as isolated and aberrant, and specifically
vouches for his trustworthiness (A.E. B). Applicant’s pastor (and the man who hired him
as the college business manager in 1984), trusted him with the college’s finances and
with leadership responsibilities in the church, also considers Applicant’s misconduct out
of character and would trust him with classified information (A.E. B). Other long-term
associates from the college, including the former athletic director, director of facilities, as
well as co-workers, subordinates, and supervisors (in some capacities), voice the same
opinion of his trustworthiness.
Applicant’s family is aware of his misconduct. His three older children know why
he had to leave the college; his three minor children know only that he had to leave. His
testimony at hearing was credible, and his remorse for his misconduct evident. He was
offered a position of financial responsibility in his new church, which he discretely
declined with his pastor (who he told of his past issues).
Policies
The RAG are factors to be considered in evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for
access to classified information. Administrative Judges must assess both disqualifying
and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and circumstances
presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair and impartial common sense
consideration of the factors listed in RAG ¶ 2(a). The presence or absence of a
disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or against Applicant.
However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case can be
measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial
of access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence
as a whole, the relevant, applicable, adjudicative guidelines are Guideline J (Criminal
Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an Applicant’s security clearance. The government
must prove, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it establishes a prima facie case against access
to classified information. Applicant must then refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the Applicant
bears a heavy burden of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
¶31.(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; (c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct,4
regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted;
¶32.(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such5
unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment; (b) the person was pressured . . . into committing the act and those
pressures are no longer present in the person’s life; (d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation;
including but not limited to the passage of time without recurrence or criminal activity, remorse or
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community
involvement;
4
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.3
Analysis
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline J by
establishing Applicant’s two-year course of misconduct resulting in his resignation from
his employer of over 20 years.  However, Applicant mitigated the security concerns.4
While the misconduct cannot be considered distant in time, the circumstances of the
misconduct were unusual, and the misconduct itself completely out of Applicant’s
character. Further, there has been no recurrence of the misconduct, Applicant made
restitution, and his rehabilitation is well documented.  Tellingly, his most important5
associates from the college vouch for his trustworthiness notwithstanding his
misconduct, and a former employer recommended him to family for his current position.
I consider it extremely unlikely Applicant would ever engage in this misconduct again. I
resolve Guideline J for Applicant.
The government failed to establish a case for disqualification under Guideline F.
Applicant’s evidence from the alleged creditors demonstrates that the debts were
improperly entered on to his credit reports. I resolve Guideline F for Applicant.
A whole person analysis leads to the same result. For a brief period of time when
he was under unusual stress, he breached his fiduciary duty to his employer. He offers
no justification for his conduct, but made restitution and resigned. For more than 20
years before the misconduct and for more than three years after his resignation, he has
demonstrated his reliability and trustworthiness to his past and current employers.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT 
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
5
Paragraph 2. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT 
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
Subparagraph b: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all 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 granted.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge