1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 08-03992
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Emilio Jaksetic, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: William F. Savarino, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony,  I grant
Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on July 19, 2007.
On October 21, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guidelines F, E and J.
The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), 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 (AG)
promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant received the SOR, answered it writing through counsel on November
11, 2008, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. DOHA received the
W hen  SOR allegations are controverted, the government bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient1
to prove controverted allegations. Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. That burden has two components. First, the
government must establish by substantial evidence that the facts and events alleged in the SOR indeed took
place. Second, the government must establish a nexus between the existence of the established facts and
events and a legitimate security concern. See ISCR Case No. 07-18525 (Feb. 18, 2009), concurring and
dissenting, in part, opinion.
Response to SOR.2
GE 1; GE 3 at 42-48.3
AE A; Tr. 35-40.4
2
request on November 12, 2008. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on
November 14, 2008, and I received the case assignment on December 2, 2008. DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on December 9, 2008, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on January 12, 2009. The government offered ten exhibits (GE) 1 through
10, which were received and admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant
testified on his own behalf. He submitted 13 exhibits (AE) A through M, which were
received and admitted into evidence without objection. DOHA received the transcript of
the hearing (Tr.) on January 26, 2009. I granted Applicant’s request to keep the record
open until January 21, 2009, to submit additional matters.  Applicant timely submitted
the additional information, which has been marked as AE N, and admitted without
objection. The record closed on January 21, 2009.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, dated October 21, 2008, Applicant denied the factual
allegations in the SOR, with explanations.  He also provided additional information to1
support his request for eligibility for a security clearance.  2
Applicant, who is 26 years old, works for a Department of Defense contractor as
a security analyst. He began this position in July 2007. He served in the United States
Navy on active duty from September 2002 until September 2006. He received an
honorable discharge. During his years of service, the Navy awarded him a Good
Conduct medal, an Achievement medal, a Global War on Terrorism Service medal, two
Battle “E” Service ribbons, an Armed Forces Expeditionary medal, a National Defense
Service medal, and two commendations. His Navy evaluations reflect that he performed
a difficult job well.  3
As teenagers, Applicant and his brother received monthly Social Security
benefits (SSI) through their father. His mother opened a joint checking account in his
name and his brother “I”s name. Applicant and his brother had access to the money in
the account. The bank in which this checking account had been opened was in State A,
where Applicant and his brother lived. In September 2000, at age 17, Applicant moved
to State B, to live with his father and to complete his senior year of high school. He
graduated from high school in June 2001.4
GE 5, attachments; GE 9 (court docket sheets); AE A; Tr. 36-42, 44. 5
GE 5, attachments; GE 9; GE 10 (State statute).6
3
While living in State A, Applicant routinely cashed checks at a local store. In
September 2000, he wrote three checks, which the store cashed. Shortly thereafter, he
moved to State B. He did not return to State A until February 2001 to attend his
mother’s funeral, which was February 11, 2001. When he returned, a relative told him
that the store was looking for him. On February 12, 2001, he contacted the store and
learned that his three checks had been returned by the bank for insufficient funds, as
were three other checks he does not recall writing. He did not know that the checks had
been returned by the bank, but realizes that without telling him, his brother wrote checks
which depleted the account funds. He next contacted his bank and verified that the
checks had been returned for insufficient funds. After verifying the nonpayment,
Applicant paid the store $900 in cash, which repaid the $400 in check overdrafts plus
penalties. He did not contest the amount; he paid it. He then returned to State B. He
never appeared in court to answer for criminal charges. He closed the checking account
in 2001.5
The court docket sheets from State A for six misdemeanor simple worthless
check charges indicate that Applicant was served with a summons on February 12,
2001, that each case had a disposition (conclusion) date of February 13, 2001, and that
each case had a court filing date of February 14, 2001. Three cases were scheduled for
trial on February 23, 2001 and three cases were scheduled for trial on March 21, 2001.
The court records show that the debt was paid in each case as of February 13, 2001.
The applicable statute in State A sets forth the procedures a complaining party must
follow to prepare a case for worthless check case. The statute also allows each district
within the State A to establish a program for collection in worthless check cases. If
approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts, the program allowed the prosecutor
to set up criteria for these cases, and if the check passer participated by making
restitution of all fees and charges, the prosecutor would not prosecute the case. State
statute §14-107.2.  6
The time lines on the court docket sheet supports Applicant’s testimony that he
did not appear in court on these charges. The disposition date is one day before the
filing date of the case. In three cases, the disposition date is 10 days before the
scheduled hearing date and in three cases, the disposition date was 36 days before the
scheduled hearing date. The docket sheet does not show any other court appearance
date. Based on Applicant’s credible testimony that he did not appear in court and the
time lines in the court docket sheet, I find that he did not appear in court. I also find that
he paid the debts under the collection program established by the prosecutor in the
district in which he lived. While the specifics of the collection program are not of record,
the court docket sheet dates clearly show that the checks were paid on February 13,
2001 before the case was filed and a court date set. The only explanation for this is that
Id.; Tr. 45-47, 80-84. My interpretation of the court docket sheet is based on my many years of experience7
reading court docket sheets in private practice.
AE C; AE N; Tr. 60-61, 90-94.8
4
Applicant paid the debt to the store as he testified and the store notified the prosecutor,
who created the court record under their collection program.7
In July 2007, Applicant met with a security clearance investigator. For the first
time, he learned about unpaid debts on his credit report and about a criminal record
related to the checks written in 2000. After his meeting with the investigator, Applicant
pulled his credit report. The credit report dated July 27, 2007 contains the notation
“fraud victim ‘initial alert’. Verify identity of consumer before granting credit” on the first
page. The credit report shows that this was the initial security alert. Because he could
not understand the information contained in his credit report, Applicant hired a credit
reporting agency in August 2007. He made at least one payment to this agency as he
initially thought he owed the debts. As he began to research the debts listed on his
credit report, he realized he did not owe the debts and cancelled his contract with the
credit counseling agency in October 2007. Over the next months, Applicant filed
challenges to various debts listed on his credit report. In October 2007, he contacted the
police about filing an identity theft report, but the police officer to whom he spoke
declined to take a report saying that the police did not take reports of this type and
recommending that Applicant contact the credit reporting companies. 
In July 2008, Applicant again contacted the police about filing an identify theft
report. He received different information this time. On July 24, 2008, he personally filed
an identity theft incident, not theft, report with the local police where he lived. He listed
three accounts in the report: the car loan and two credit cards. On October 24, 2008, he
filed a continuation report with the local police, listing four more debts including a
telephone debt, a car insurance debt, and two bank card debts.8
The SOR identifies five unpaid debts, including a car loan for $12,884, a credit
card debt for $360, a credit card debt for $256, a telephone debt for $120, and an
insurance debt for $358, which are listed on the July 27, 2007 credit report. On
September 21, 2007, Applicant filed an on-line challenge to the car insurance debt and
two credit card debts, one of which is not listed as an issue in the SOR. The credit
report dated July 25, 2008 shows that Applicant challenged one address and nine
accounts on his credit report. Both credit reporting companies investigated his
challenges to these accounts and after investigation, the companies deleted eleven of
the twelve accounts and the incorrect address. The one account not deleted is not at
issue in this case. All the debts listed in the SOR are not listed in the more recent credit
reports. Four of the five SOR debts were verified as deleted following an investigation
by the credit reporting companies. The only deleted debt not verified as incorrect is the
insurance debt of $358. However, in light of Applicant’s challenge to this debt and the
absence of this debt from the more recent credit reports, I find it is reasonable to infer
that the credit reporting companies deleted this debt because of his challenge and
SOR; GE 3 (Attachment - Credit report, dated May 13, 2008); GE 6 (Credit report dated July 27, 2007); GE9
7 (Credit report, dated June 6, 2008); AE I; AE J; AE K; AE L; AE M (Credit report, dated December 12, 2008);
AE N at 3-4; Tr. 64-76.
GE 3; GE 6; GE 7; AE M; Tr. 77-78, 84.10
GE 1, at 1, 10-11.11
Tr. 80-84.12
5
subsequent to their investigations. The fraud alert continues on his credit reports.
Applicant has shown he does not owe the debts listed in the SOR.9
Applicant is engaged to be married. He earns $63,000 a year and his fiancee, a
teacher, earns more than $30,000 a year. He has a mortgage and a car payment. He is
current on his bills. With the exception of the check issues in 2000, Applicant has never
bounced a check or overdrawn his checking account.10
On July 19, 2007, Applicant completed his security clearance application. He
answered “no” to the following question in his e-QIP:11
Section 23. Your Police Record f. In the last 7 years, have you been
arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offense(s) not listed in
response to a, b, c, d, or e above? (Leave out traffic fines of less than
$150 unless the violation was alcohol or drug related.)”
Applicant first learned that he had a criminal record when he met with the
security investigator after completing his e-QIP. He never appeared in court for the
check issues in 2001 and never received a court summons. He had no contact with the
court in State A until after meeting with the security investigator.  12
In March 2007, he started working for a government contractor as a security
analyst for public trust forms. He submitted his written resignation on July 23, 2007,
effective July 27, 2007. His employer did not evaluate him during these four months. He
submitted his resignation to the site supervisor, who died in December 2008, and the
Director of Human Resources. He offered his assistance during his transition. He did
not have performance issues at this job to his knowledge. His work assignment
averaged 500 cases. When he resigned, his supervisor transferred his remaining 300
cases to a federal employee performing the same work as he. In response to an
investigative request, this federal employee, who was not his supervisor, stated that
Applicant left his job with cases undone and that he did not complete his work in a
timely manner. A co-worker submitted an affidavit indicating that the federal employee
was not a supervisor, but a co-worker who was unhappy about receiving Applicant’s
cases after his departure. I find that the individual completing the investigative form was
GE 8; AE F; Tr. 49-56.13
After any decision, the losing party has a right to appeal the case to the Defense Office of Hearings and14
Appeals  Appeal Board. The Appeal Board’s review authority is limited to determining whether three tests are
met:
E3.1.32.1. The Administrative Judge’s findings of fact are supported by such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of
all the contrary evidence in the same record. In making this review, the Appeal Board shall
give deference to the credibility determinations of the Administrative Judge:
E#.a.32.2. The Administrative Judge adhered to the procedures required by E.O. 10865
(enclosure 1) and this Directive: or
6
not Applicant’s supervisor and lacked authority to provide information on his work
performance. Applicant has never been fired from a job.  13
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.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines 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.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the 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
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security
decision.  14
E3.1.32.3. The Administrative Judge’s rulings or conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.
The Appeal Board does not conduct a “de novo determination”, recognizing that its members have
no opportunity to observe witnesses and make credibility determinations. The Supreme Court in United States
v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 690 (1980) succinctly defined the phrase “de novo determination”:
[This legal term] has an accepted meaning in the law. It means an independent determination
of a controversy that accords no deference to any prior resolution of the same controversy.
Thus, in Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 23 [(1974)], the Court
had occasion to define “de novo proceeding” as a review that was “unfettered by any
prejudice from the [prior] agency proceeding and free from any claim that the [agency’s]
determination is supported by substantial evidence.” In United States v. First City National
Bank, 386 U.S. 361,368 [(1967)], this Court observed that “review de novo” means “that the
court should make an independent determination of the issues” and should“not . . give any
special weight to the [prior] determination of the administrative agency.
(Internal footnotes omitted). See ISCR Case No. 07-10396 (App. Bd., Oct. 2, 2008) and ISCR Case No. 07-
07144 (App. Bd., Oct. 7, 2008). In ISCR Case No. 05-01820 (App. Bd. Dec 14, 2006), the Appeal Board
criticized the administrative judge’s analysis, supporting grant of a clearance for a PRC-related Applicant, and
then decided the case itself. Judge W hite’s dissenting opinion cogently explains why credibility determinations
and ultimately the decision whether to grant or deny a clearance should be left to the judge who makes
witness credibility determinations. Id. at 5-7. See also ISCR Case No. 04-06386 at 10-11 (App. Bd. Aug. 25,
2006)(Harvey, J., dissenting) (discussing lim itations on Appeal Board’s authority to reverse hearing-level
judicial decisions and recommending remand of cases to resolve material, prejudicial error). Compliance with
the Agency’s rules and regulations is required. See United States ex. rel. Acardi  v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S.
260, 268 (1954); Lopez v. FAA, 318 F.3d 242, 247-248 (D.C. Cir 2003); Nickelson  v. United States, 284 F.
Supp.2d 387, 390 (E.D. Va. 2003)( explaining standard of review).
7
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 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).  
ISCR Case No. 03-20327 (App. Bd., October 26, 2006).15
8
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:      
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 guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly, under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. The credit report submitted by the government constitutes prima
facie evidence that Applicant accumulated some delinquent debt and was unable to pay
some obligations for a period of time.  The evidence is sufficient to raise these15
potentially disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ Applicant=s
SOR debts occurred because someone opened accounts in his name without his
knowledge. Except for the debts created by an unknown party who used Applicant’s
identity, Applicant has managed his finances appropriately. He acts responsibility about
his debts as shown by the credit reports, his challenges to unknown debts and his
decision in 2001 to repay debts created by his brother’s actions. His conduct in regard
to his finances does not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment. The evidence raises this potentially mitigating condition. 
Under AG & 20(b), it may be mitigating where Athe conditions that resulted in the
financial problem 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.@ As noted above,
Applicant’s financial problems arose because an unknown individual stole his identity
and used his identity to purchase goods on credit. When he learned about his stolen
identify, he immediately contacted the credit reporting agencies and requested a fraud
alert be placed on his report. He also contacted his creditors, filed challenges with the
Applicant resolved the debts identified as legitimate.16
9
credit reporting agencies, and contacted the police. His actions were very responsible
under the circumstances.
Evidence that Athe 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@
is potentially mitigating under AG & 20(c). Applicant hired a credit counseling agency to
explain to him the information contained in his credit report. Once he understood what
was occurring with his credit and realized he could resolve the problem on his own, he
declined any further services from the credit counseling service. I conclude this
potentially mitigating condition has some applicability. AG & 20(d) does not apply as the
evidence does not show Athe individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts” listed in the SOR.
Applicant challenged all the debts listed in his credit report which were not his.
The credit reporting agencies investigated his challenges and deleted most of the debts
as not belonging to him. Thus, AG ¶ 20(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” applies.  AG ¶ 20(f) is not applicable in this case.16
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct::
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.
AG ¶ 16(a) describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(a) 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.
For this guideline to apply, Applicant’s omission must be deliberate. The
government established that Applicant omitted material facts from his e-QIP when he
answered “no” to Question 23f about the worthless checks written in 2000. This
information is material to the evaluation of Applicant’s trustworthiness to hold a security
See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov.17, 2004)(explaining holding in ISCR Case No. 02-2313317
at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2004)).
Intention is defined as “a determination to act in a certain way” and intentional is defined as” done by18
intention or design”. Merriam-W ebster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11  ed. 2003).th
Even if I were to find the government had established disqualifying condition AG ¶ 16(a), mitigating condition19
AG 18(f), the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability would apply as the
allegation of intentional falsification was unsubstantiated.
10
clearance and to his honesty. He denies, however, that he deliberately falsified his
answers. When a falsification allegation is controverted, the government has the burden
of proving it. Proof of an omission, standing alone, does not establish or prove an
applicant’s intent or state of mind when the omission occurred. An administrative judge
must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine whether there is direct or
circumstantial evidence concerning an applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the
omission occurred.  For DC ¶ 16 (a) to apply, the government must establish that17
Applicant’s omission, concealment or falsification in his answers was deliberate and
intentional.18
Applicant did not intentionally falsify his answer to Question 23f because he did
not know that he had a criminal record related to the checks written when he was 17
years old. Applicant credibly testified that he never appeared in court to answer for
criminal charges for writing worthless checks. His testimony is supported by the court
docket sheets which reflect that the checks were paid and the disposition date was one
day before the cases were actually filed. Given that State law allows a prosecutor to
develop a collection program for worthless checks, Applicant’s testimony that he
reimbursed the store for the money lost and costs is credible. Applicant’s failure to list
his criminal record was not deliberate and intentional as he was unaware that he had a
record.19
The SOR identifies information about Applicant’s work performance as a security
concern. The information comes from a disgruntled co-worker, not his employer. In
addition, the information does not raise questions about Applicant’s honesty,
trustworthiness, or reliability to protect classified information. Applicant denied any
problems in this job and the record lacks information about what workplace rules he
violated while performing his duties. His employer did not evaluate his performance
during the four months he worked. Displeasure from a co-worker is irrelevant to an
applicant’s security worthiness.  Guideline E is found in favor of Applicant.
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct
Paragraph 30 of the new adjudicative guidelines sets out the security concern
relating to criminal conduct: ACriminal 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.@
11
The adjudicative guidelines set out certain conditions that could raise security
concerns. Paragraph 31(a) provides that Aa single serious crime or multiple lesser
offenses@ may be disqualifying. Although Applicant was unaware of the criminal charges
in State A, he admits he wrote three checks that were returned for insufficient funds and
that he reimbursed the store for the monies lost. This information combined with the
court records is sufficient to raise this potentially disqualifying condition.
The adjudicative guidelines also set out some potentially mitigating conditions.
Under AG ¶ 32(a), disqualifying conduct may be mitigated where Aso 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 upon the individual=s
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.@ Under AG ¶ 32(d), mitigation may be
established where Athere 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.@ The worthless checking writing incident occurred in
September 2000, more than 8 years ago. He and his brother had access to the same
checking account. Unbeknownst to him, his brother wrote checks for all the funds in the
account, not just his share of the funds. His brother’s failure to inform Applicant of these
actions directly caused Applicant’s checks to be returned by the bank. When he learned
of the problem, Applicant immediately made restitution to the store and then closed the
account. Applicant has demonstrated rehabilitation. He has not been involved with the
police for any reason since this incident. He has not been involved with drugs or other
illegal activities. He honorably served in the Navy and works regularly. The evidence
raises these mitigating conditions.
Whole Person Concept
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) the 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 security
clearance must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both good
12
and bad. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the evidence of record, not
a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is shown. A determination of
an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for
specific past conduct, but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of
record to decide if a nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security
concern.     
The mitigating evidence under the whole person concept is substantial. In
reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s
problems first began when he was a young man, still in high school. (See AG & 2(a)(4).)
His brother depleted the funds from their joint checking account without telling him,
causing Applicant to write worthless checks. When he learned about the problem at his
mother’s funeral a few months later, Applicant immediately paid the store for its losses
after verifying that the checks had been returned for insufficient funds. At the young age
of 17, Applicant accepted responsibility for this problem. Since this time, Applicant
graduated from high school and served in the Navy with honor. He has acted honestly
and with integrity in all that he does.
When he met with the security investigator, Applicant learned that he had credit
problems. He immediately contacted the credit reporting agencies to report a possible
theft of his identity. He hired a credit counseling agency to help him with reading and
interpreting the information on his credit report. When it became clear to him that his
identity had been stolen, he notified the credit reporting companies and attempted to file
a police report. He challenged the unknown debts on his credit report. After
investigation, the credit reporting agencies deleted most of the debts as not his. He
resolved the two debts which were determined to be his. He pays his bills timely and
lives well within his financial means. He will marry soon. He bought a house recently. He
is a responsible young man who has resolved all the debt issues which are of concern
to the government. He did not lie when he completed his e-QIP, as he was unaware that
when he repaid the store, the local prosecutor would create a criminal record paper trail.
Because it has been eight years since the check incident, he cannot be improperly
pressured or placed under duress for this conduct. Of course, the issue is whether all
his past conduct and finances raise concerns about his fitness to hold a security
clearance. After weighing all the evidence of record, I conclude that the conduct raised
in the SOR is insufficient to raise security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(1).)
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
considerations, personal conduct and criminal conduct. 
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:
13
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge