1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE    
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
  )     ISCR Case No. 09-05353 
 ) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Candace L. Garcia, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant fell behind in some financial obligations due to unemployment and low 
income when she was working. As of January 2010, several consumer credit accounts were 
seriously delinquent, and she owed a deficiency balance on a loan for a timeshare that went 
to foreclosure. She has begun repaying her debts. But personal conduct and criminal 
conduct concerns persist because of a March 2007 larceny offense and her failure to 
disclose the larceny arrest and delinquent debts when she completed her security clearance 
application in March 2009. Clearance denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On January 27, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a 
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing the security concerns under Guideline F, 
Financial Considerations, Guideline E, Personal Conduct, and Guideline J, Criminal 
Conduct, that provided the basis for its preliminary decision to deny her a security 
clearance. DOHA acted 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 
 
 
 2 
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department 
of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
  
Applicant submitted an incomplete response to the SOR on February 11, 2010, in 
that she answered the financial allegations (SOR 1.a–1.g) and SOR 2.a under Guideline E. 
In response to a request from DOHA of March 4, 2010, Applicant filed an undated answer in 
which she still did not indicate whether she wanted a hearing.
1
 Yet, on April 30, 2010, the 
case was assigned to me to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national 
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. On May 17, 2010, I 
scheduled a hearing for June 8, 2010. 
 
I convened the hearing as scheduled. Eight Government exhibits (Ex. 1-8) and two 
Applicant exhibits (Ex. A-B) were entered into evidence without objection. Applicant testified, 
as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on June 18, 2010. At Applicant‟s request, I held the 
record open until July 6, 2010, for her to submit additional documents. Six additional 
documents were timely received and entered as exhibits (Ex. C-H) without objection.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
The SOR alleged under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, that as of January 27, 
2010, Applicant owed $16,195.07 in delinquent consumer credit debt (SOR 1.a–1.g), 
including a $9,189.07 deficiency balance of a foreclosed loan for a timeshare (SOR 1.a). 
Under Guideline E, Applicant allegedly falsified her March 2009 Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) by not disclosing that she had been arrested in 
September 2006 for riot, unlawful assembly, and risk of injury (SOR 2.a(1)), and in May 
2007 for larceny (SOR 2.a(2)). Applicant was also alleged to have falsified her e-QIP by 
responding “No” to whether she had any property foreclosed (SOR 2.b), and to inquiries into 
any loan defaults, collection debts, credit card charge offs or cancellations, debts over 180 
days delinquent, and debts currently over 90 days delinquent (SOR 2.c). The arrests (SOR 
3.a) and falsification of her e-QIP (SOR 3.b) were cross-alleged under Guideline J, Criminal 
Conduct. 
 
Applicant admitted that she had been arrested as alleged and had incurred the 
debts, but she was making monthly payments toward her delinquencies. After considering 
the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I make the following findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is a 41-year-old single mother with three daughters, two of college age and 
a five year old born in November 2005. (Ex. 2; Tr. 50, 56-57.) Applicant has been employed 
as a security guard by a defense contractor since March 2009 (Ex. 64.), and she seeks her 
first security clearance. (Ex. 2; Tr. 65.) 
 
                                                 
1
The Government submitted as Exhibit 1 Applicant‟s undated response, which was received by DOHA on 
March 22, 2010. That document did not include a request for a hearing from Applicant. When asked whether 
she had otherwise requested a hearing, Applicant responded, “No, but they said because I didn‟t answer [on 
her supplemental answer] yes or no, then they automatically did a hearing.” (Tr. 21.) Applicant agreed to 
proceed with a hearing, and she presented evidence on her behalf. 
 
 3 
Around November 1999, Applicant left a full-time job, and she moved to a distant 
state with her then boyfriend. (Tr. 126.) Their relationship did not work out, and she returned 
in January 2000. Applicant was unemployed thereafter until September 2002. (Ex. 2; Tr. 
62.) She and her then two children resided in public housing rent free, received food stamps 
for a time, and otherwise lived off the $327 received in child support per month for her 
oldest daughter. (Tr. 53-54, 62.) 
 
From October 2002 to October 2005, Applicant worked in a succession of part-time 
jobs, including at a gas station. Following the birth of her youngest daughter in November 
2005, Applicant did not return to even part-time work because she could not afford daycare. 
(Tr. 49, 55-56.) She was late 60 days three times in repaying a $23,603 car loan taken out 
in June 2000, but she paid off the loan in August 2005. (Ex. 6, 7.) Other debts were referred 
for collection (Ex. 6.), although she continued to receive child support for her eldest 
daughter until her daughter started college in 2007. (Tr. 63.)  
 
In September 2006, Applicant‟s oldest daughter had a personal dispute with another 
high school student that evolved into a melee involving about 15 high school youth at 
Applicant‟s residence. (Tr. 36.) The police were called, and several of the teenagers were 
arrested, including Applicant‟s daughter. Applicant went to the police station to make a 
statement and to gain custody of her daughter only to be arrested herself for causing a riot, 
unlawful assembly, and risk of injury to a minor. The charges were dismissed with no finding 
of culpability after Applicant showed she had been trying to break up the fight.
2
 (Ex. 3; Tr. 
36-37, 118.) 
 
 In late May 2007, Applicant was arrested for larceny of party supplies worth between 
$65 and $100.
3
 (Ex. 5.) According to Applicant, a store employee unknown to her offered to 
let her leave the store without paying for her items if she gave the employee $25. (Tr. 37.) 
Struggling financially and wanting a nice graduation party for her daughter, Applicant paid 
the store clerk $25 and left the store with party supplies without checking out at a register. 
Another employee observed Applicant leave the store without paying, and Applicant was 
arrested. A public defender arranged for the charge to be dismissed provided Applicant 
stayed away from the store for a period that she now recalls to be six months to a year. (Ex. 
3; Tr. 41-45.) 
 
 In March 2009, Applicant began working for her current employer as a security guard 
at $13.73 an hour. (Tr. 56, 64.) On March 9, 2009, Applicant completed an e-QIP for a 
security clearance. She responded “No” to the police record inquiries, including 22.b, “Have 
you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal, or any other type of law 
enforcement officer?” Applicant also responded “No” on the e-QIP to all the financial record 
inquiries, including questions 28.b, “Have you had any possessions or property voluntarily or 
                                                 
2 
No court records were submitted that would show the disposition. Applicant testified that the September 2006 
charges were thrown out (“annihilated”). (Tr. 40.) 
  
3
Applicant indicated during her background investigation for her security clearance that she had taken party 
supplies worth approximately $65 to $80 from the store, but the charge was nolled. (Ex. 3.) At her hearing, she 
testified she took graduation party supplies worth around $100. (Tr. 43.) 
  
 
 4 
involuntarily repossessed or foreclosed?”; 28 e, “Have you had a judgment entered against 
you?”; 28.f, “Have you defaulted on any type of loan”; 28.g, “Have you had any bills or debts 
turned over to a collection agency?”; 28.h, “Have you had any account or credit card 
suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed?”; 28.m, “Have you been 
over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s)?”; and 28.n, “Are you currently over 90 days 
delinquent on any debt(s)?.” (Ex. 2.) Yet Applicant had several financial accounts that were 
seriously past due, and she had defaulted on a mortgage for a timeshare taken out in 
February 2002 when she was unemployed. (Ex. 6; Tr. 75.) Applicant and her niece went on 
vacation together, and her niece talked her into buying a timeshare interest in a 
condominium on a golf course. Applicant recollects the timeshare may have cost as much 
as $27,000. The father of her eldest daughter helped her out with the payments initially, but 
she could not keep up with the payments. (Tr. 71-73.) The property went to foreclosure by 
December 2007 (Ex. 6.), but Applicant believed that an affirmative response was not 
required to question 28.b. She thought that in return for her payments, she acquired a right 
to rent the resort property for a vacation stay during odd numbered years. (Tr. 107-08.) That 
said, she knew she had stopped making payments on the loan so it should have been 
reported as a delinquent debt over 180 days past due. As for her failure to disclose the 
credit card delinquencies on her e-QIP, Applicant has no explanation other than she was 
excited about getting a job and she must have made an inadvertent error (that she either hit 
the wrong computer key or she skipped over pages when she reviewed her e-QIP). She 
admits she knew that she had three credit card accounts that had been closed due to 
nonpayment. (Tr. 108-12.) Concerning her failure to mention her arrests, Applicant now 
asserts that she was told that she would not be required to report the arrests on any job 
applications because “[she] didn‟t go to jail.” (Ex. 3, Tr. 39-40, 115-16.) 
 
 A check of Applicant‟s credit on March 20, 2009, revealed several outstanding 
delinquencies in collection, a judgment against her that was paid in February 2007, and the 
timeshare loan that went to foreclosure. (Ex. 6.) The financial history of her delinquent 
accounts is set forth in the following table. 
 
Debt Delinquency history Payment status 
1.a. $9,189.07 deficiency 
balance for timeshare after 
auction 
Timeshare loan taken out in 
Feb. 2002, to foreclosure for 
nonpayment Mar. 2006, 
$2,754 past due on $7,000 
balance as of Dec. 2007. (Ex. 
6.) 
$100 payments Feb. 19, 2010 
(Ex. B.) and Jun. 30, 2010. 
(Ex. D.) 
1.b. $2,284 charged off credit 
card debt 
Account opened Jan. 2002, 
$200 limit, last activity Feb. 
2003, $2,284 past due as of 
Oct. 2009. (Ex. 6, 7.) 
In debt management plan, 
$658 in total payments Nov. 
2009-Jun. 2010. (Ex. C.) 
1.c. $1,244 credit card debt in 
collection 
$884 past due balance for 
collection May 2004, $1,244 
past due as of Sep. 2009. 
(Ex. 6, 7.) 
In debt management plan, 
$400 in total payments Nov. 
2009-Jun. 2010. (Ex. C.) 
 
 5 
 
1.d. $2,266 credit card debt in 
collection 
Account opened Oct. 1996, 
$1,100 limit, last activity Jan. 
2005, $2,196 past due 
balance in collection as of 
Mar. 2009, $2,266 past due 
as of Oct. 2009. (Ex. 6, 7.) 
In debt management plan, 
$694.04 in total payments 
Nov. 2009-Jun. 2010. (Ex. C.)  
1.e. $535 debt in collection $535 debt for collection Jun. 
2008; unpaid as of Feb. 2009. 
(Ex. 6.)  
Not in debt management plan 
(Tr. 85.), $40.02 payment 
likely on this debt Jul. 2010. 
(Ex. F.) 
1.f. $417 telephone (landline) 
debt in collection 
Account opened Oct. 1993, 
last activity Feb. 2005, $417 
in collection as of Feb. 2009. 
(Ex. 6.) 
Satisfied through debt 
management plan Feb. 2010 
with $417.96 payment. (Ex. 
C.) 
1.g. $260 retail credit account 
in collection 
Account opened Dec. 1999, 
last activity May 2004, $110 
limit, $260 for collection as of 
Feb. 2009. (Ex. 6.) 
In debt management plan, 
$80 total paid Nov. 2009-Jun. 
2010. (Ex. C.) 
$734 small claims judgment 
awarded credit card lender 
(not alleged in SOR) 
Account opened Jul. 2001, 
$964 high credit, last activity 
Jan. 2005, $734 judgment 
filed Jun. 2006. (Ex. 6, 7, A.) 
Paid judgment Feb. 2007. 
(Ex. 6.) 
 
 On April 7, 2009, Applicant was interviewed by a government investigator about her 
unlisted arrests. She told the investigator that she did not list them because she was not 
convicted and did not have an arrest record. (Ex. 3.) 
 
 On June 25, 2009, Applicant was interviewed by a government investigator about her 
debts. She acknowledged she had a credit card debt with a balance of about $1,000 in 
collection, and a timeshare loan that she claimed she “closed” when she could not afford 
the payments. She did not know the balance of that loan or recognize the other debts on 
her credit report, although she also did not refute the delinquencies. Applicant attributed her 
debts to lengthy unemployment and low-paying employment. She indicated her monthly 
discretionary income was about $627, and she would arrange to repay her delinquent debts, 
which she claimed had been inadvertently omitted from her e-QIP. (Ex. 3.) 
 
 On September 30, 2009, Applicant agreed to pay $324 monthly to a credit counseling 
company to resolve $7,817.85 of her debt in a debt management plan. She arranged for the 
$324 monthly payments to be automatically deducted from her checking account. (Ex. A.) 
Between November 2009 and June 2010, payments totaling $2,250 had been made to her 
creditors under the plan. (Ex. C.) The timeshare loan balance was not included in the plan. 
On February 19, 2010 (Ex. B.), and on June 30, 2010 (Ex. D.), Applicant made $100 
payments on the timeshare loan. On July 2, 2010, she paid $40.02 on a debt in collection 
(possibly SOR 1.e).
4
 (Ex. F.) 
                                                 
4
Post-hearing submissions included a $40.02 payment by cashier‟s check in July 2010 (Ex. F.) to the creditor 
 
 6 
 
 As of July 2010, Applicant was relying on her timely receipt of child support of 
$328.38 every other week to meet her budget.
5
 (Ex. H.) The child support is for her 
youngest daughter. (Tr. 93-94.) Her oldest daughter is in college with the cost paid for by 
the daughter‟s father (Tr. 135.), but Applicant helped out her niece by paying $281 in 
college tuition costs each month from September or October 2009 to June 2010. (Tr. 97-98, 
105, 133.) Applicant‟s niece did not receive the same amount of aid that she had for her first 
year in college, and she could not afford to stay in school without Applicant‟s assistance. 
(Tr. 134-35.) Applicant has not had any financial counseling. (Tr. 102.)  She has not opened 
any new credit card accounts in several years, including retail charge accounts, and has no 
active credit card accounts. (Ex. 8; Tr. 129.) Applicant fell behind in her utility bills (gas and 
electric) in 2009. As of June 2010, she was paying extra each month to catch up. (Tr. 131.) 
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing 
that “no one has a „right‟ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 
518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant‟s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be considered 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 overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense 
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. 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 to obtain a favorable security decision. 
                                                                                                                                                               
originally owed the debt in SOR 1.e. The account number to which the check was payable does not match any 
of the account numbers listed on her credit reports, however. 
 
5
After her hearing, Applicant provided a financial statement showing $32.36 in monthly discretionary income 
based on a paycheck of $560.40 weekly and child support of $382.38 biweekly. Presuming a 40-hour work 
week, the $560.40 would appear to be her gross income. She had testified that her currently hourly wage is 
$14.01 (Tr. 56.), and her take-home pay was $460 per week.  So while some of Applicant‟s expenses may vary 
from month to month, she clearly needs the child support to meet her obligations. 
 
 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 that 
the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to 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). 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18, as follows:  
     
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. Two are potentially applicable in this case:   
 
 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
Applicant took on a loan of about $27,000 for a timeshare interest when she was 
unemployed (SOR 1.a). Not surprisingly, she could not afford to keep up with the payments 
on her part-time income, even with the financial help of her eldest daughter‟s father. The 
property was foreclosed on and auctioned by late December 2007, leaving her with a debt 
around $7,000.
6
 Applicant was employed part time starting in October 2002, but she 
continued to struggle financially. She stopped paying on the revolving charge accounts 
identified in SOR 1.b and 1.c in 2003, and on the retail charge account in SOR 1.g in May 
2004. In January 2005, a credit card lender charged off and placed for collection a $2,196 
past due balance (SOR 1.d). A $417 telephone debt was referred for collection in February 
2005 (SOR 1.f). A credit card debt (not alleged) went to judgment in 2006, when she was 
unemployed and caring for her infant daughter. Also, as of March 2009, Applicant reportedly 
                                                 
6
The SOR alleged the balance of the loan to be $9,187.07. Applicant admitted the debt, although the available 
credit reports do not corroborate the balance. The loan is reported only on the March 2009 credit report as a 
foreclosure with a 
 
balance of $7,320 as of December 2007. (Ex. 6.) 
 
 8 
owed $535 on a bank debt in collection since June 2008 (SOR 1. e). AG ¶19 (a) and ¶19(c) 
apply because of her failure to remain current on the aforesaid debts. 
 
  Five Financial Considerations mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially 
applicable: 
 
(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; 
 
(b) the 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; 
 
(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; 
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts; and  
 
(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. 
 
Applicant‟s financial problems are too recent to favorably consider AG ¶ 20(a). As of 
her March 2009 e-QIP, Applicant had taken no steps to resolve any of her old 
delinquencies. AG ¶ 20(b) applies in part in that low income was a significant cause of her 
falling behind in her payments, and she was not in a position to address her long overdue 
debts during her lengthy unemployment from October 2005 to March 2009. Her 
unemployment was voluntary in that she chose to stay at home to care for her daughter, so 
it was not an unforeseen circumstance contemplated within AG ¶ 20(b). At the same time, it 
is unclear whether she would have earned enough to cover daycare costs. Clearly, 
Applicant did not act reasonably in taking on the timeshare loan, and AG ¶ 20(b) does not 
mitigate that poor financial decision. 
 
Applicant did not begin addressing her delinquent debts until after her June 2009 
interview with a government investigator when she was confronted with the adverse 
information on her credit record. She had utility bills that had become delinquent when she 
was unemployed and they understandably took priority when it came to repayment. She 
also gave priority to her niece‟s need for tuition assistance, which is more difficult to justify. 
But she has shown good faith of late by enrolling in the debt management plan in late 
September 2009 and paying $324 monthly into the plan starting in November 2009. As of 
her hearing, the telephone debt had been paid in full and her credit card debt burden had 
 
 9 
been reduced through payments totaling $2,250. Applicant has a credible plan in place to 
resolve all but the debts in SOR 1.a and 1.e. AG ¶ 20(d) applies in her favor. 
 
With respect to the debt in SOR 1.e, Applicant testified that she intended to include 
that debt in her debt repayment plan, but the firm disbursing payments to her creditors was 
apparently unable to verify that debt. It is unclear whether AG ¶ 20(e) applies to that debt, 
given she paid $40.02 to the initial credit grantor named in SOR 1.e after her hearing. 
Concerning the timeshare loan, Applicant‟s March 2009 credit report shows that the creditor 
reclaimed the collateral to settle the defaulted mortgage, and the debt does not appear on 
subsequent credit reports. Applicant has nonetheless made two payments of $100 each 
toward the debt. She testified that the resort has offered to renew her membership in a 
different unit provided she keeps making payments. (Tr. 69.) It is unknown whether the 
creditor intends to pursue her for the entire deficiency balance, which could be in excess of 
$9,000 at this time. That said, it is undisputed that she defaulted on the loan. 
 
Applicant has not had an active credit card account in several years, which is a 
positive change in her financial habits. Yet she has not had any financial counseling, and 
recent utility delinquencies indicate ongoing financial issues. AG ¶ 20(c) has only limited 
applicability in this case. But she is likely to continue to make her payments under the debt 
resolution plan and she understands that she exercised poor judgment in buying the 
timeshare when she did. The financial concerns are mitigated by her good-faith efforts to 
resolve her debts. However, this case is not only about her finances. 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
Applicant did not disclose her arrest record on her e-QIP. Nor did she disclose that 
she had serious credit delinquencies, despite her awareness of outstanding past due credit 
card balances and of her default on the timeshare loan. Applicant appeared in court on the 
September 2006 charges, but they were dismissed without any finding or admission of 
culpability on her part. Applicant testified, without evidence to the contrary, that she had 
demonstrated to the court that she was just trying to break up the fight. Under those 
circumstances, Applicant could reasonably hold a good-faith, albeit mistaken, belief that she 
was not required to disclose her arrest for riot, unlawful assembly, and risk of injury on her 
security clearance application. The omission of the larceny charge is more difficult to 
mitigate. While it was nolled or dismissed, she was ordered to stay away from the store, and 
she knew that she had taken the party supplies without paying for them. When she was 
interviewed in April 2009, she told a government investigator that she did not admit the 
arrests because she was not convicted and did not have an arrest record. Her testimony 
that she was told by a public defender that she would not have to disclose the arrests on 
any job application (Tr. 116.) is uncorroborated. Question 22.b of the e-QIP is unambiguous 
in asking whether she had been arrested within the time frame covered by the inquiry, which 
in her case was since March 2002. It does not ask only about convictions. In light of the 
written direction to disclose even dismissed charges, Applicant would have had reason to 
question the validity of any advice that she need not report her arrests, especially for larceny 
where she acknowledges her culpability. 
 
 
 10 
Furthermore, had Applicant acted in a spirit of full disclosure, she would have at a 
minimum responded affirmatively to questions 26.m (over 180 days delinquent on any 
debts) and 26.n (currently over 90 days delinquent on any debts). Even if she did not know 
that her credit card accounts had been referred for collection, she knew that she had not 
made any payments on them for several years. Similarly, she admitted that she had 
received a notice of foreclosure of the timeshare, although she claims it was “not too long 
ago.” Given the foreclosure and reclamation by the creditor occurred well before March 
2009, she had to have known of the foreclosure before her e-QIP. She received 
documentation about the foreclosure from the court. The debt should have been reported in 
response to questions 26.m and 26.n, whether or not she misunderstood whether the 
foreclosure required an affirmative response to question 26.b. Her claim that the omission of 
debts was inadvertent is not credible based on the facts. AG ¶ 16(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”) applies because of her false 
responses to the pertinent arrest and debt inquiries. 
 
None of the mitigating conditions are satisfied. There is no indication that Applicant 
informed the Government of her arrests or her delinquent debts before her interviews 
wherein she was confronted with the information. AG ¶ 17(a), “the individual made prompt, 
good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being 
confronted with the facts,” is not established. Assuming that Applicant had been advised 
that she need not report her arrests on any job applications, AG ¶ 17(b), “the refusal or 
failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by 
improper or inadequate advice of authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or 
instructing specifically concerning the security clearance process,” would still not be met. 
There is no evidence that Applicant was told she did not have to report the information on 
her security clearance application. As noted under Guideline J, infra, falsification of the 
security clearance application is a serious offense, and her March 2009 e-QIP omissions 
were relatively recent. So AG ¶ 17(c), “the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, 
or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely 
to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual‟s reliability, trustworthiness, or good 
judgment,” is also not implicated. 
 
Finally, when asked at her hearing about her omission of the debt information from 
her e-QIP, Applicant had no explanation other than that she must have made an inadvertent 
mistake, like pushing a wrong computer key. Applicant responded “No” to all the financial 
inquiries, so she would have had to have repeated her “mistake” if she is to be believed. 
Instead, the more likely scenario is that Applicant did not want to disclose facts that could 
jeopardize the clearance she needs for her employment. Her failure to acknowledge the 
intentional nature of her behavior precludes me from favorably considering AG ¶ 17(d), “the 
individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior 
or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused 
untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to 
recur.” She has yet to show sufficient reform of the personal conduct concerns raised by her 
false statements on her e-QIP. 
 
 11 
 
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct 
 
The security concern about criminal conduct is set out in Guideline J, AG ¶ 30: 
 
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. 
 
 As previously noted, Applicant was arrested in September 2006 for causing a riot, 
unlawful assembly, and risk of injury, and in May 2007 for larceny. AG ¶ 31(c), “allegation or 
admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, 
formally prosecuted, or convicted,” must be considered, despite the legal dismissal of the 
charges. Furthermore, by signing the e-QIP, Applicant certified that her statements on the 
form were “true, complete, and correct to the best of [his] knowledge and belief and [were] 
made in good faith.” She was put on notice that a knowing and willful false statement on the 
form could be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Her 
knowing omission of relevant arrest and debt information from her e-QIP also raises 
concerns under AG ¶ 31(c). 
 
Mitigating condition AG ¶ 32(a), “so much times 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,” is not satisfied because of her relatively recent e-QIP falsifications. AG ¶ 32(c), 
“evidence that the person did not commit the offense,” has limited applicability only to the 
September 2006 incident. Applicant did not incite the fighting that took place at her 
residence. Nor did she intend harm to the teenagers that became involved in the melee.  
Applicant‟s defense contractor employment is some evidence of reform under 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.” More than 
three years have passed since the May 2007 larceny. But Applicant was also dishonest 
when she completed her e-QIP in March 2009, and such behavior is clearly incompatible 
with a security clearance. The criminal conduct concerns are not fully mitigated without a 
meaningful acknowledgement of responsibility and expression of appropriate remorse for 
her e-QIP falsifications, although she is remorseful for her shoplifting. 
 
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 her conduct and all 
relevant circumstances in light of 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) 
 
 12 
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.  
 
Applicant takes her parental responsibilities seriously. She helped out her niece 
financially so her niece can remain in college. But she allowed her desire to give her 
daughter a nice graduation party to override her good judgment when she shoplifted the 
party supplies. Similarly, while I can appreciate her need for a steady income to support her 
family, it does not justify her failure to be completely candid about her arrest record and 
financial delinquencies on her e-QIP. Applicant‟s conduct raises serious doubts about her 
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness that are not adequately mitigated. Based on the 
information before me, I am unable to conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national 
interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance at this time. 
 
 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:   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 
 Subparagraph 1.f:   For Applicant 
 Subparagraph 1.g:   For Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 2.a(1):  For Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.a(2):  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.b:   Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.c:   Against Applicant 
   
 Paragraph 3, Guideline J:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 3.a:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 3.b:   Against Applicant 
 
 
 13 
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 eligibility for a security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
________________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge