The Government submitted twelve items in support of its case.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-07105
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen, A. Administrative Judge:
On March 23, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising under Guideline
F (Financial Considerations), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct). 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 Adjudicative Guidelines
(AG). 
On April 8, 2010, Applicant answered the SOR and requested an administrative
determination. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM),
dated June 16, 2010.  Applicant received the FORM on June 23, 2010, and submitted a1
response to the FORM in a timely manner. On August 5, 2010, the Director, DOHA,
forwarded the case for assignment to an administrative judge. I received the case
2
assignment on August 6, 2010. Based on a review of the case file, submissions, and
exhibits, I find Applicant failed to meet his burden regarding the security concerns
raised. Security clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline J (Criminal activity), and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct).
Applicant is a 40-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He graduated from
high school in 1988 and received a diploma from a technical college in 1992. Applicant
is married and has three children. He has worked for his current employer since April
2006. Applicant obtained a security clearance in 2001. (Item 4)
In 1989, Applicant stole property from passengers’ baggage while employed as a
baggage handler with an airline. He admitted that he engaged in this illegal practice
months before his arrest. Applicant was charged with felony grand larceny in November
1989. (Item 9) After finding him guilty, the court sentenced Applicant to six-months
probation. Applicant’s charges were dismissed in 1991. (Item 5) He reported that he
committed the crime due to peer pressure and immaturity.
In March 1996, Applicant filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. The bankruptcy
was discharged in June 1996. (Item 7) There is no information in the record as to the
origin of the debts or the circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy. 
After Applicant’s bankruptcy, from 1996 until 1999, he worked full-time in one
position. He moved to another state for a job opportunity, and from June 1999 until
October 2001, Applicant was employed by an airline. However in light of the events on
September 11, 2001, Applicant was unemployed for a few months (October 2001 until
February 2002). He noted full-time employment with other companies (February 2002
until 2005) until his current employer. (Item 4 )
Applicant reported having financial problems in April 2006 when his contractual
position with his employer was not renewed. (Item 5) He was offered full-time
employment but at a significantly lower rate, a reduction of approximately $28,000. In
2008, Applicant’s wife lost her job. At the same time, the interest rate on his adjustable
rate mortgages (ARM) increased from four to seven percent. (Item 5) As a result,
Applicant defaulted on his two home mortgage accounts. The accounts were charged-
off for an approximate total of $222,070. (Item 12) Applicant was in a loan modification
plan for a third home mortgage account, which is now paid. (Item 6)
In August 2008, Applicant and his family sustained injuries in an automobile
accident. Applicant forged the signature of his supervisor on an insurance company
document to verify time and compensation for lost wages due to the accident. (Item 5)
As a result of an investigation, Applicant was charged with two counts of (1)
false/misleading information Fraud + $300, (3) Att-\Theft: Less $500 value and (5)
3
Forgery. He pleaded guilty of one count of false/misleading info/fraud+$300. In 2009,
Applicant received unsupervised probation before judgment and was ordered to pay a
fine and court costs. The other charges were nolle prosequi. (Item 8)  
Applicant responded to DOHA interrogatories in December 2009. Regarding his
financial situation, he explained that he tried to obtain a consolidation loan for the home
mortgage accounts. However, he was denied due to his income/debt ratio. He was not
making any payments as of April 2009 because he was negotiating with the collection
agency. (Item 5) The file documentation reveals that Applicant’s last payment was June
2008.  
Applicant’s 2009 monthly net income was $7,143. His wife’s income at the time
from temporary work was $1,068. He listed monthly expenses of $2,503. In addition,
Applicant noted that he was paying and current on approximately eleven credit
accounts for a total of $4,986. It would appear that there is a net remainder. (Item 6)   
Applicant provided documentation in response to the FORM in mid-July 2010.
He submitted two Stipulations of Agreement with the credit union for the two charged-
off accounts listed in the SOR which totaled approximately $222,000. The agreements
were signed on July 12, 2010. The agreements called for monthly payments to begin on
July 15, 2010. The monthly payments of $500 and $200 respectively would continue
until the accounts were paid in full. The accounts would not be subject to any interest.
Applicant claimed in the cover letter that accompanied the agreements that he started
the payments in May 2010. He did not provide documentation of any payments to
support his assertion. He also claimed that the delay in the repayment plan was caused
by a mistake that the credit union made when completing the process. In the alternate,
Applicant claimed that it had taken a year for him to get a repayment plan arranged
because the person handling the case refused to see him. Applicant further noted that
the representative who started the process for the repayment plan no longer worked at
the credit union and he had to start the process over again, which was the reason for
the delay until July 2010. (Response to FORM, dated July 14, 2010)
Applicant expressed sorrow for the criminal activity in 2009 concerning the
forged insurance document. He claimed he did not want his supervisor to know how
much he made on an hourly basis. Applicant elaborated that he did not believe his
supervisor knew his salary. In the alternate, Applicant claimed that he was sorry for
what happened but he admitted to the insurance investigator that he forged the
document. Applicant also noted that he went to court and believed the case was
“thrown out” with no probation. He believed he heard the judge say that he would not
receive probation. This was Applicant’s reasoning for not listing any probation on his
2009 interrogatories and stating on the 2009 DOHA interrogatories that the case was
“thrown out without any probation.” In the same 2009 interrogatories, Applicant claimed
“he believed he learned a lot about pride and has grown in maturity on how to deal and
handle people on both a personal and a professional level.”
Applicant sent emails to his attorney in March 2010 asking for clarification of his
plea and the status of the 2009 criminal case. He told his attorney that he wanted the
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
4
case “erased.” He noted that the investigation during his security clearance showed the
guilty plea and unsupervised probation. Applicant claimed he was confused and wanted
to be sure he was giving correct information.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions. These 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. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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 United States Government (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 is2
something less than a preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion3
is on the applicant.  4
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather
than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
 
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
5
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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a7
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline For Financial Considerations is set
out in AG ¶ 18:
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.” It also states that “an individual who
is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in
illegal acts to generate funds.
Here, Applicant admitted that he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in March 1996
which was discharged in June 1996. Applicant also has delinquent debts in the amount
of $222,070. Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC)
AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history
of not meeting financial obligations) apply. With such conditions raised, it is left to
Applicant to overcome the case against him and mitigate security concerns.  
Applicant had a fresh start in 1996 after filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Applicant
noted several months of unemployment in 2001. However, after that he was steadily
employed. He claimed that a reduction in pay in 2006 restarted his financial problems.
His wife lost her job and the adjustable mortgage rates increased at the same time.
This may have exacerbated Applicant’s ability to meet his obligations, but he provided
no information about his efforts to otherwise meet those obligations during that period.
He has just entered into a repayment plan, dated July 15, 2010. He has not provided
6
documentation to show he has made any payments on the two charged-off mortgage
accounts. Consequently Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FCMC) 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) does not apply.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) 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)
does not apply. As noted, Applicant had a short period of unemployment. He noted that
his salary as a permanent employee was less than as a contractor. His wife also lost
her job in 2008. These events, no doubt, impacted his finances. However, he did not
act reasonably under the circumstances. He allowed the delinquent debts to remain
unpaid. There is no record of any attempts to eliminate his debt until after he received
the SOR. 
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. Applicant has not provided
evidence of any consistent payment plans. He asserts that he entered a repayment
plan and started payments in May 2010, but has not provided documentation to support
this claim. His failure to disclose whether he ever received financial counseling obviates
the applicability of FC MC AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or is receiving
counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that the problem is being
resolved or is under control).
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 30 expresses the security concern pertaining to 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.”
AG ¶ 31 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying:
(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses;
(b) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under
dishonorable conditions;
(c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of
whether the person was formally charged, formally
prosecuted or convicted;
(d) individual is currently on parole or probation;
7
(e) violation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a
court-mandated rehabilitation program; and,
(f) conviction in a Federal or State court, including a court-
martial of a crime, sentenced to imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year and incarcerated as a result of that
sentence for not less than a year. 
Applicant’s 1989 and 2009 criminal conduct is sufficient to raise AG ¶¶ 31(a) and
31(c). Applicant admitted both crimes. Although Applicant received probation for his
latest offense and the 2009 guilty plea was vacated, it does not diminish the
seriousness of the crime. Applicant forged a document that was sent to an insurance
company to gain compensation for lost time at work. This occurred last year. Although
there was a 20-year gap in time between Applicant’s two crimes, he has not shown any
insight into his behavior. He has not been successfully rehabilitated and shows a
pattern of untrustworthy behavior. In his 2009 DOHA interrogatory answers, he stated
his 2009 case was thrown out and he did not receive any probation. This leaves me
with doubts about his judgment and reliability.  
AG ¶ 32 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(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;
(b) the person was pressured or coerced into committing the
act and those pressures are no longer present in the
person's life;
(c) evidence that the person did not commit the offense;
(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; and,
(e) potentially disqualifying conditions (b) and (f) above, may
not be mitigated unless, where meritorious circumstances
exist, the Secretaries of the Military Departments or
designee; or the Directors of Washington Headquarters
Services (WHS), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA),
National Security Agency (NSA), Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) or designee, has granted a waiver.
8
After reviewing the mitigating conditions, I find that none of them apply in this
case. Applicant has not provided any information for the record concerning his
employment evaluation record. He listed his jobs. But he provided no recommendations
or performance evaluations. 
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.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. Under AG ¶ 16(a), a disqualifying conditions exists when there is
“deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel
questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct
investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status,
determine security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.”
Under AG ¶ 16(b) a disqualifying condition exists when “deliberately providing false or
misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security
official, competent medical authority, or other official government representative.”
Applicant admitted that he deliberately falsified his material facts in his response
to DOHA 2009 interrogatories. He did not disclose his guilty plea, and one-day
probation. His answer was the “case was thrown out.” This is a misleading statement. In
light of his later “confusion”, and past history of untrustworthy behavior, I do not find his
later explanations credible. His response to the FORM and his one-year later emails to
his attorney requesting clarification on his case, do not persuade me. His behavior and
personal conduct are disqualifying as they raise questions about his judgment,
reliability, truthfulness, and willingness to comply with the law.
After considering the mitigating conditions outlined in AG ¶ 17, I conclude that
none of them apply. Applicant did not make prompt or good-faith efforts to correct his
falsification or concealment. He provided no information that indicates he was ill-
advised. The intentional omissions occurred in 2009, and are too recent and serious to
be mitigated. Applicant presented alternate reasons for his behaviors. I have serious
doubts about his good judgment and reliability. He has not provided information in this
record to show that he has met his burden of proof for his personal conduct.
. 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 an applicant’s
9
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 commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the “whole-person”
factors. Applicant is 40 years old. He has a history of behavior that involves dishonesty.
He has not shown successful rehabilitation or true insight into his behavior. Applicant
has unresolved financial difficulties, despite having a fresh start in 1996 after a Chapter
7 bankruptcy. As recently as 2009, he forged a document for an insurance claim. He
pleaded guilty to the crime, but chose to forget the outcome when he responded to
DOHA interrogatories. His rationale for his behavior is varied. Applicant shows a lack of
candor and questionable judgment. Although Applicant received minimal punishments
for his 1989 and 2009 criminal behavior, it does not lessen the seriousness of them.
In requesting an administrative determination, Applicant chose to rely on the
written record. In so doing, however, he failed to submit sufficient information or
evidence to supplement the record with relevant and material facts regarding his
circumstances, articulate his position, and carry his burden in this process. He failed to
offer evidence of financial counseling. He failed to provide documentation regarding
actual payments. I do not find his reasons and explanations credible for his criminal
behavior. Accordingly, Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the
three above referenced guidelines. Clearance is denied. 
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 F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d: Against Applicant
10
Paragraph 2., Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a through 2.b: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a through 3.b: Against Applicant
Conclusion
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 Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge