Due to poor copy quality, Department Counsel offered a logical interpretation discerning the date of the SOR.1
Transcript at 5-6.
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-01077
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: John Bayard Glendon, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted a Security Clearance Application (e-QIP), signed September
21, 2007. On February 23, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline J
(Criminal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline E (Personal
Conduct).  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified1
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended, and Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the revised adjudicative
guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective
within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
On April 24, 2008, Applicant requested a hearing on the matter. In response to
the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations regarding criminal conduct, denied the
2
allegations regarding financial concerns, and did not provide an answer regarding
personal conduct. Applicant’s request for a hearing was received on May 22, 2008, and
I was assigned the case on May 28, 2008. Applicant and Department Counsel
proposed a hearing date of July 1, 2008. A notice of hearing was issued on June 13,
2008, setting the hearing for that date. Due to a scheduling conflict, a notice was issued
on July 2, 2008, setting the hearing for July 10, 2008.
The hearing was convened as scheduled. The Government offered six exhibits,
which were accepted into the record as exhibits (Exs.) 1-6 without objection. Applicant
represented herself and gave testimony; no witnesses were called. She offered seven
exhibits, which were accepted into the record without objection as Exs. A-G. The record
was held open through July 28, 2008, to afford Applicant the opportunity to supplement
the record. A 20 page facsimile transmission was received on July 18, 2008, from
Applicant. It consisted of a cover letter and select pages from her credit report. On July
22, 2008, the Government submitted a letter in which it declined to object to Applicant’s
submission. The submission was accepted into the record as Ex. H. In the interim, the
transcript (Tr.) was received on July 18, 2008. The record was closed on July 30, 2008.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 50-year-old senior financial assistant working for a defense
contractor. She has worked for the same contractor for the past three years. Applicant
is married and has two adult children from a prior marriage. She has completed
approximately two and one-half years of college. 
From 1976 through 2000, Applicant worked for the Federal government and
maintained a security clearance. During this same time period, Applicant’s first marriage
soured. She divorced her first husband in 1985, but she neglected to remove his name
from her bank account. On three occasions between November 1987 and April 1989,
Applicant wrote checks on her account which were returned for insufficient funds. This
was the result of her ex-husband withdrawing funds from her account without her
knowledge, thus reducing her available balance. Consequently, she was thrice arrested,
charged, and convicted of passing a bad check. When Applicant’s ex-husband later
went to court for committing domestic violence, the bank corroborated that it was
Applicant’s husband’s withdrawals that reduced Applicant’s bank balances sufficiently
to cause the three checks to be returned.
In 2000, Applicant moved to a new state. The move was costly and money was
tight. In submitting her reimbursements to the Government for the balance owed on her
lease, she inflated the balance she said she owed her apartment complex. Additionally,
the receipts offered the Government for housing reimbursement in her new state of
residence were higher than the actual costs she expended. As a result, Applicant was
charged and convicted of Filing a False Claim and Theft of Government Property.
Approximately $15,000 in restitution was sought by the Government. Applicant pled
guilty. In August 2000, she was sentenced to 30 days of incarceration, five years of
supervised probation, and ordered to make restitution. 
 Tr. 45-46.2
 Tr. 45; 48.3
 Tr. 26-27.4
 Tr. 27.5
 “They forgot that I was supposed to go on a work release.” Id.6
 Ex. H (Probation letter, dated July 18, 2008) at 3.7
 Tr. 18-19; Ex. H, supra, at 4.8
 Attachment to the SOR Answer, Bank letter, dated March 14, 2005.9
3
At the suggestion of her attorney, Applicant resigned her government position
the week before her sentence was passed.  Applicant’s supervisor did not want her to2
resign. When it was clear that was Applicant’s intent, the supervisor referred Applicant
to a particular government contractor in the private sector. Thus referred, that employer
hired Applicant within two weeks after she left government service.  For the most part,3
she has worked for various government contractors on different projects off and on
since that time. 
When it came time to serve her 30 days, Applicant had not heard from the
corrections department. Her entry date apparently had been miscalculated. She helped
facilitate her immediate processing because she wanted to fulfill her sentence
expeditiously and get her life back on track.  To that end, she took a “proactive4
approach to mending and straightening [her] life out.”  She served her term in prison in5
October 2000 without incident. After her release, she helped facilitate her own timely
transition into a work release program.  Restitution was aggressively and regularly6
made in larger than necessary amounts. She struggled to make larger payments to
expedite the repayment of the amount owed the court. The full amount was repaid
early, with payments completed before or by April 2005. Her period of supervised
probation was promptly terminated in August 2005 with all requirements timely
completed.  7
During Applicant’s incarceration, a $126.00 bill from her cable company went
unpaid. The account became delinquent, but was ultimately discovered and paid off by
Applicant in 2004.  The following year, in March 2005, Applicant similarly paid off the8
full balance owed on a delinquent credit card with a balance of $7,350.00.9
Applicant remarried in 2006. Her husband’s salary was used, in part, to pay their
monthly mortgage. Between February and June of 2007, Applicant’s husband was out
of work due to an on-the-job injury. Following his accident, it took several months for his
Worker’s Compensation payments to be processed and paid. As a consequence, they
became delinquent on their mortgage. Showing the mortgage company that Worker’s
Compensation would be forthcoming, however, their lender worked with them and
 Ex. H (Credit report, dated July 18, 2008) at 8.10
 Tr. 24.11
 Id.12
 Tr. 21.13
 Tr. 25.14
 Tr. 21.15
 Tr. 21-22.16
 Ex. D-E (Community Letters, dated June 27, 2008).17
 Id.18
 Tr. 21-22.19
 Ex. A (Personal Reference Letter of June 25, 2008).20
4
helped them refinance the loan. The account was brought up to date in October 2007.
Today, the payments are up to date. There is no past due amount owed to the
mortgagor.10
Applicant regrets what she did in the past, looks at her past legal transgressions
as a “life lesson,” and is committed to moving forward in the future and not let such
things happen again.  She has made a conscious effort to turn her life around and to11
demonstrate that openly.  As a result, over the past eight years, she has made12
substantial changes in the manner she conducts her affairs. Although her ex-husband
is no longer on her bank account, she does not write a check unless she is sure there is
more than sufficient funds to cover it and any other outstanding withdrawals.  She has13
learned the importance of working with creditors and living within one’s means.  She14
received financial counseling, is currently living within her means, and is saving money
for the future. 
Now active with a local church, Applicant became an integral part of its outreach
program following her incarceration. That program gives counseling to those in trouble
and those who are in debt, teaching them that they need not resort to crime to make
it.  Instead, they emphasize job training, She openly shares her story with, and offers15
her insights to, participants and youth groups.  Through this church group, in 2003, she16
met her current husband. Together, they started their own partnership with a national
charitable organization through their church.  The partnership has been hugely17
successful, owing in great part to Applicant’s leadership and efforts within the
community.  It redistributes donations to those in need and it has a food bank, through18
which recipients can also find referrals to escape or avoid homelessness.  It also19
provides confidential aid and outreach to battered women. Her commitment to their
organization has demanded a great deal of her personal time. She is noted for her
abilities as a counselor and a trusted confidante to those in crisis.20
 Ex. B (Professional Reference Letter of June 25, 2008).21
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).22
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).23
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).24
5
At work, Applicant is held in high regard and known for providing good work for
the company’s government customers.  Her employer acknowledges the underlying21
facts in this case and notes no suspicions or concerns regarding her trustworthiness. 
Policies
When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
Administrative Judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
The guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, they are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in
the adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal is a
fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is
a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.”
The Administrative Judge must consider all available, reliable information about the
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based
on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. An applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to
rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by
Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a22
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable23
clearance decision is on the applicant.  24
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration
 Id.25
 Id.26
 Executive Order 10865 § 7.27
6
of the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual risk of compromise of
classified information.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access25
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.   The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily26
a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the27
applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense
have established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Based upon consideration of the evidence, and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)
and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) are the most pertinent to the evaluation of the
facts in this case:
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. With respect to Guideline J (Criminal
Conduct), the Government has established its case. Applicant admits she was thrice
cited and convicted for passing a bad check in the 1980s. She also admits she pled
guilty to Filing a False Claim and Theft of Government Property during the summer of
2000. Such conduct and admissions are sufficient to raise security concerns, and
invoke Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions (CC DC) 1, AG ¶ 31(a) (a single
serious crime or multiple lesser offenses), and CC DC 3, AG ¶ 31(c) (allegation or
admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged,
formally prosecuted, or convicted).
The bad check convictions occurred about two decades ago and bear little
relevance to any subsequent activity. Moreover, the facts indicate that the insufficiency
of funds in Applicant’s bank account was due not to any intent on her part to defraud,
but to her ex-husband’s continued, unauthorized, and unknown access to her bank
 Revised Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18.28
7
account. Consequently, these instances are not only dated in the past, but were
created  through unique facts unlikely to recur in the futures. As for the false claim and
theft of government property, Applicant admitted the charges and pled guilty. That was
over eight years ago. Since then she has not only served her sentence and made full
restitution, but she has returned to work within the government contractor community
with a solid and praised record, devoted numerous hours to community service, and
regularly uses her own life as an example to discuss human weakness, incarceration,
and the ability to turn one’s life around. Taken together, Criminal Conduct Mitigating
Condition (CC MC) AG ¶ 32(a) (“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”) applies.
Indeed, Applicant’s desire for complete rehabilitation even after her release from
incarceration over eight years ago is impressive. Recognizing a need to give back to
her community and understanding that sharing her own story with others could help her
steer others away from crime, Applicant has since been selfless with both her time and
her energy. Her community service is impressive. Equally impressive are her genuine
and credible expressions of contrition, her expedited restitution, and the passage of
time without recurrence of any dubious actions or financial problems. Consequently, CC
MC AG ¶ 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, job
training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community
involvement”) applies. 
Guideline F – Financial Considerations
A failure or an 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 Regulation sets out several potentially disqualifying conditions under this28
guideline.  
While briefly incarcerated in 2000 and as her husband was awaiting Workman’s
Compensation in 2007, two of Applicant’s accounts became delinquent and her
mortgage became overdue. Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC)
AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) and FC DC AG ¶ 19(a)
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) apply. With such conditions raised, the
burden shifts to Appellant to address the case against her and mitigate security
concerns. 
Applicant was not married when she was incarcerated in 2000. During her
absence from home, she lost track of some accounts which ultimately went unpaid.
 Additionally, refusal to provide full, frank and truthful answers to lawful questions in connection with a29
personnel security or trustworthiness determination will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action or
administrative determination of further processing for clearance eligibility.
8
Specifically, a telecommunications account and a credit card became delinquent.
However, both accounts were paid in full prior to the issuance of the February 2008
SOR. Moreover, when Applicant’s husband was injured on the job in 2007, he could not
work. The temporary loss of his income impacted family finances. The delay in receipt
of Workman’s Compensation made them late on their mortgage payments. By October
2007, however, the arrearage was repaid and the account was back in good standing.
Once again, corrective action was taken before the SOR was issued in 2008. 
Both instances were situations where Applicant had limited or no control. In
neither set of facts was Applicant’s response to her situation reckless or irresponsible.
Both bills were ultimately paid within a reasonable amount of time – and well before the
issuance of the SOR. Based on these facts, Financial Considerations Mitigating
Condition (FC MC) 2, AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the behavior 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) applies.
Further, the telecom and credit card delinquencies were both satisfied by 2005.
Like the late mortgage, those debts became late because of unique facts and
circumstances over which Applicant had no control. Financial Considerations Mitigating
Condition (FC MC) 1, AG ¶ 20(a) (the behavior happened so long ago, was so
infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does
not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment)
applies. Indeed, Applicant’s innate knack for budgeting, which helped her repay her
restitution sum in an expedited manner, and the knowledge gleaned from financial
counseling assured that her debts were addressed long before the issuance of the
2008 SOR. As a consequence, security concerns regarding Applicant’s finances had
been put to rest long before the SOR was issued. Therefore, FC MC 4, AG ¶ 20(d), (the
individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts) and FC MC 3, AG ¶ 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) apply. 
Guideline E – Personal Conduct
Security concerns arising from matters of personal conduct are controlled by
Guideline E of the AG. Such security concerns arise in the presence of questionable
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness
to comply with rules and regulations which could indicate that the person may not
properly safeguard classified information.29
With regard to the three bad checks from the 1980s, there is no indication that
Applicant knew she was passing along checks her bank account could not cover.
9
Indeed, the facts tend to indicate that it was Applicant’s ex-husband’s covert use of her
bank account that led to there being deficient funds in the account. Consequently, these
three events from the distant past bear no adverse impact on Applicant’s
trustworthiness, reliability, or honesty today.
In padding her moving expenses while seeking reimbursement from the
Government in 2000, however, Applicant demonstrated poor judgment,
untrustworthiness, and a lack of candor. Such facts give rise to Personal Conduct
Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) AG ¶ 16(c) (credible adverse information in several
adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any
other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole person
assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor,
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating
that the person may not properly safeguard protected information) and AG ¶16(d)
(credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline
and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when
combined with all available information supports a whole person assessment of
questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person
may not properly safeguard protected information).
Applicant’s padding of her moving expenses was not a recent transgression. It
occurred in the summer of 2000 – over eight years ago. Moreover, this isolated incident
was unique and atypical when considered within the full span of Applicant’s personal
and professional life, both before and after her incarceration. Indeed, it stands out in
stark and singular contrast to the over two decades of Government service that
preceded it and the eight years of private sector employment and volunteerism that
succeeded it. Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition (PC MC) ¶ 17(c) (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 cast doubt on
the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) applies. 
Furthermore, from the time Applicant’s expense report padding was exposed to
the present, she has actively and diligently worked to pay for her misdeed and make up
for her transgression. Rather than fight the charges, she pled guilty. She prodded the
system to let her serve her time and to transition to work release in a timely manner.
She expedited payment of her restitution. Applicant has since devoted her free time to
her church and community charity, providing counseling and often using her own story
as a morality tale to discourage contacts from turning to crime. She helped start her
own community support service through her church with her husband. Eight years after
her conviction, Applicant is a trusted employee, admired wife, active church organizer,
tireless volunteer, and respected member of her community. She has achieved this
level not by keeping her past a secret, but by sharing her past and demonstrating how
one can rise above one’s past. Such facts give rise to PC MC AG ¶ 17(e) (the individual
has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation,
manipulation, or duress).
10
Whole Person Concept
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have also considered Applicant’s
highly credible testimony. She is a mature, direct, and candid individual with a fine work
record and a notable record for community service. A “whole person” evaluation was
also conducted.
Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the
Applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The Administrative Judge should
consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): “(1) the nature,
extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct,
to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct;
(4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) extent to which
participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other
permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for
pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence.” Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility
for a public trust position must be an overall common sense judgment based upon
careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept. 
Applicant’s expense report padding was a blatant disregard of the rules and laws
governing her employment. It was also an isolated incident. It appears to have been
motivated not by a dire financial need, but by a sense that she could “work the system.”
She took a chance, she lost, and she continues to express her regret. On the other
hand, this singular instance of reckless behavior and poor judgment occurred over eight
years ago. Since that time she has completed her sentence, paid her dues to society,
and made full restitution. Both her words of contrition and her explanation as to how
she has tried to pay society back for her transgression are heartfelt. They are also
reflected in the good works she has performed within her community for over eight
years. In sharing her experiences with others, she provides a potent example of both
the costs of criminal behavior and the ability to self-rehabilitate. There is no evidence
that Applicant will ever again resort to such behavior. As for her financial situation, the
facts show that she addressed the accounts at issue well before the issuance of the
SOR and that her financial footing has been restored.
Applicant is aware that her crime was one which flagrantly violated the law and
demonstrated foolish judgment. It is, however, a singular instance of an adverse
volitional act within the context of a career spanning over 30 years. The Applicant of
today has demonstrably learned from her experience. Taken together, her genuine
contrition, her earnest efforts toward rehabilitation, and the passage of over eight years
help restore her reputation and trustworthiness. In depicting her rehabilitation, Applicant
has further mitigated security concerns raised from her past financial and criminal
activity. In light of the whole person presented and security concerns, I conclude that it
is clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance is granted. 
11
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.d: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Clearance is granted.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge