This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992,1
as amended (Directive), and adjudicative guidelines which became effective within the Department of Defense
for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.
                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                              
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-00094
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Stephanie Hess, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                              
______________
Decision
______________
LAZZARO, Henry, Administrative Judge
Applicant has a history of criminal offenses which includes a suspended sentence
of confinement at hard labor for illegal possession of stolen things in October 2000, that
resulted in his physical confinement from September 2003 until August 2004. He has
numerous delinquent debts he only relatively recently began to resolve. Applicant was
aware his wife omitted his criminal history in the security clearance application she filled
out on his behalf and with his input in August 2009. Clearance is denied. 
On May 5, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued an
SOR to Applicant stating it was unable to find it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.  The SOR alleges security1
concerns under Guideline J, (criminal conduct), Guideline F (financial considerations), and
Guideline E (personal conduct). Applicant submitted an undated response to the SOR in
which he admitted SOR allegations 1.a - 1.l, 2.a, 2.e, 2.g, 2.h, 2.k, 2.l, 2.n, and 2.u. He
denied all other SOR allegations and he requested a hearing.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
 Applicant waived on the record the 15-day notice requirement. (Tr. 16-17)2
 AE 1 is a list of 21 character witnesses and their telephone numbers. I explained to Applicant that3
neither I nor Department Counsel would contact those witnesses, and I offered to leave the record open to
provide him the opportunity to submit written statements from those witnesses (Tr. 28-29). Applicant declined
that offer (Tr. 89-90).
2
The case was assigned to me on August 29, 2011. A notice of hearing was issued
on October 5, 2011, scheduling the hearing for October 18, 2011.  The hearing was2
conducted as scheduled. The government submitted nine documents that were marked
as Government Exhibits (GE) 1-9 and admitted into the record without objection. Applicant
testified, called his wife to testify on his behalf, and submitted 14 documents that were
marked as Applicant’s Exhibit (AE) 1-14, and admitted into the record without objection.3
The transcript was received on November 2, 2011.     
Findings of Fact
Applicant’s admissions to the SOR allegations are incorporated herein. In addition,
after a thorough review of the pleadings, testimony and exhibits, I make the following
findings of fact:
Applicant is a 33-year-old man who has been employed as a security guard by a
defense contractor since July 2009. According to the security clearance application he
submitted in August 2009, Applicant worked for a number of different non-government
employers in construction trades from March 2000 to February 2009. There is an obvious
discrepancy in Applicant’s reported work history because his FBI Identification Record
discloses he was incarcerated from September 2003 until August 2004. Applicant worked
as a stocker in a grocery store from February 2009 until July 2009. 
Applicant graduated from high school in May 1995. He has been married since
November 1999. Neither he nor his wife have any children. 
Applicant was convicted of Drawing and Displaying in June 1996. He was fined $150
and sentenced to serve 60 days in jail. He was charged with Criminal Damage to Property
in October 1996. That charge was nolle prosequied. Applicant was charged with Theft by
Shoplifting in July 1999. He apparently was convicted of a less serious offense (see: entry
for this offense in GE 7). Applicant was sentenced to six months supervised probation and
given the alternative of paying a $500 fine, or serving a 30-day suspended sentence and
paying an $80 fine. He was convicted of Disturbing the Peace (loud & profane) in October
2000, for which he was ordered to pay a $75 fine or, in the event of a default, to serve 5
days in jail. 
Applicant was charged with three counts of Forgery in June 1999, and Simple
Burglary in October 1999. Apparently as part of a plea bargain, the Forgery charges were
dismissed and the Burglary charge was reduced to a charge of Illegal Possession of Stolen
Things on October 16, 2000. He was sentenced to serve three years confinement at hard
labor (suspended) , three years supervised probation, and fined $500, or in the event of
a default, to serve 60 days confinement.
 Applicant denied knowledge of a number of the criminal incidents listed in the SOR when he was4
questioned in 2009, and during his testimony at the hearing. However, all incidents are confirmed by entries
in his FBI Identification Record (GE 6) and his state arrest record (GE 7).  
3
Although it is not alleged in the SOR, Applicant’s arrest record (GE 7) discloses an
additional conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Movable on October 18, 2000. Applicant
was placed on supervised probation for one year, and fined $400 or, alternatively, ordered
to serve 60 days (30 days suspended) and pay a fine of $60. He was also ordered to pay
restitution in the amount of $150.
Applicant failed to report to a probation officer as ordered, and a warrant charging
him with Violation of Probation was issued. He was arrested on that warrant in June 2003,
and his probation based on the conviction for Illegal Possession of Stolen Things was
revoked in August 2003. He was ordered to serve the three year sentence of confinement
at hard labor. Applicant was incarcerated in September 2003, and paroled beginning on
August 18, 2004, and ending on August 18, 2006. He was convicted of Contempt of Court
for an unknown reason in November 2005, and ordered to pay a fine of $50. 
Applicant was charged with Simple Battery and Simple Criminal Damage to Property
in August 2007, based on an altercation with an intoxicated driver who almost struck his
wife. Those charges were dismissed. In an unrelated incident, Applicant was also charged
with Issuing a Worthless Check in August 2007, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
Applicant made arrangements with the prosecutor’s office to satisfy the check(s) involved
and the warrant was recalled on October 12, 2010 (GE 3). He completed paying all fines
and costs involved in getting that warrant recalled on March 15, 2011 (AE 11 & AE12).4
The SOR lists 10 delinquent medical bills, owed in the combined amount of $5,408.
Applicant and his wife testified these were the result of an injury he suffered at work, which
they unsuccessfully attempted to get satisfied through a workman’s compensation claim.
Applicant’s wife testified she has contacted some of those creditors and they are unable
to locate any information about the alleged debts. She testified she has been unable to
herself locate one of the creditors. Applicant submitted proof that in October 2010 he
began making $100 monthly payments on some consolidated medical debts that, as of
October 11, 2011, had reduced the balance owed on those debts from $8,438.87 to
$7,271.87(AE 10). The only SOR allegations that can be connected to that repayment
agreement based on the evidence presented by Applicant (see: AE 5 & AE 6) are the
debts alleged in SOR subparagraphs 1.i, and 1.j.         
Applicant submitted verification that he has either fully or partially satisfied the
delinquent debts listed in SOR subparagraphs 1.a and 1.h. Applicant’s wife testified that
several of the delinquent debts are the result of fraud and that she has notified the credit
reporting agencies and posted a fraud alert. Applicant’s credit reports confirm that a fraud
alert was posted on his behalf. 
The largest single debt alleged in the SOR, owed in the amount of $6,264, resulted
from an automobile repossession (SOR subparagraph 1.g). Applicant’s wife testified she
has been unsuccessful in her effort to establish a repayment plan with this creditor and the
4
creditor continues to demand the full amount due. Applicant does not have the financial
resources to pay this debt in full. 
In the statement he provided on September 8, 2009 (GE 2), Applicant attributed his
bad debts to “financial immaturity and irresponsibility on his part.” He is also repeatedly
quoted as stating “he has absolutely no intentions of paying anything towards this debt at
this time” even when he acknowledged the legitimacy of the debt. 
At the hearing, Applicant’s wife attributed their financial problems, in part, to the
need to provide care and financial support for her mother who died on July 22, 2011.
However, a review of Applicant’s credit report discloses that a number of his accounts have
been delinquent since 2007 and 2008.
Applicant’s wife informally consulted an attorney at a golf course where she works
on how to deal with their continuing credit problems and several debts listed in the SOR
which she contends are erroneous. However, the attorney requires payment of a $5,000
retainer before he will begin to provide them with actual assistance in resolving their credit
issues. Applicant’s wife testified she has saved about $4,300 to apply toward the retainer.
Applicant’s wife testified she submitted an on-line application for the job Applicant
has with his current defense contractor employer without his knowledge. According to her
testimony, she thereafter filled out an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on his behalf in which she intentionally failed to list his criminal history
or any delinquent debts because she didn’t believe he would actually get the job. She also
testified he signed and submitted the e-QIP without reviewing the answers she had
provided. Applicant provided a statement on September 8, 2009, in which he claimed he
did not read through the financial questions that his wife had answered on his behalf in the
e-QIP. However, he admitted he intentionally did not disclose his criminal history,
particularly his felony charge because he thought it had been reduced to a misdemeanor.
  
Applicant submitted character reference letters from work supervisors and personal
acquaintances. The letters establish those individuals believe Applicant is reliable, hard
working, conscientious, credible, and a dependable employee.
   
POLICIES
The Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to consider when evaluating a
person’s eligibility to hold a security clearance. Chief among them are the disqualifying
conditions and mitigating conditions for each applicable guideline. Each clearance decision
must be a fair and impartial decision based upon the relevant and material facts and
circumstances, the whole person concept, and the factors listed in ¶ 6.3.1 through ¶ 6.3.6
of the Directive. Although the presence or absence of a particular condition or factor for or
against clearance is not outcome determinative, the adjudicative guidelines should be
followed whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance. Considering the
evidence as a whole, Guideline J (criminal conduct), Guideline F (financial considerations)
and Guideline E (personal conduct), with their disqualifying and mitigating conditions, are
most relevant in this case. 
 ISCR Case No. 96-0277 (July 11, 1997) at p. 2.5
 ISCR Case No. 97-0016 (December 31, 1997) at p. 3; Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.14. 6
 Department of the Navy v. Egan 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).7
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 (December 19, 2002) at p. 3 (citations omitted).8
 ISCR Case No. 98-0761 (December 27, 1999) at p. 2.9
 ISCR Case No. 94-1075 (August 10, 1995) at pp. 3-4; Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.15.10
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 (January 27, 1995) at pp. 7-8; Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.15.11
 Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.12
 Id. at 531.13
 Egan, Executive Order 10865, and the Directive.14
5
 The sole purpose of a security clearance decision is to decide if it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an
applicant.  The Government has the burden of proving controverted facts.  The burden of5 6
proof in a security clearance case is something less than a preponderance of evidence,7
although the Government is required to present substantial evidence to meet its burden
of proof.  “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance of8
the evidence.”  Once the Government has met its burden, the burden shifts to an applicant9
to present evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against
him.  Additionally, an applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable10
clearance decision.11
No one has a right to a security clearance  and “the clearly consistent standard12
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”   Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access13
to classified information must be resolved in favor of protecting national security.      14
Analysis
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to
comply with laws, rules and regulations. (Adjudicative Guideline [AG] 30)
Applicant has a lengthy history of criminal conduct. While many of his offenses were
relatively minor, he committed at least two felony offenses, Forgery and Simple Burglary.
He was ultimately convicted of a reduced charge of Illegal Possession of Stolen Things and
sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years confinement at hard labor. He failed
to comply with the terms of the supervised probation he was placed on and was remanded
to serve the sentence of confinement. He was actually imprisoned from September 2003
6
until August 2004. His most recent criminal conduct which occurred in August 2007,
Issuing a Worthless Check, was not resolved until he agreed to pay restitution, fines, and
costs in October 2010. Disqualifying Conditions (DC) 31(a): a single serious crime or
multiple lesser offenses: DC 31(c): allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless
of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted, or convicted; and DC
31(e): violation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a court-mandated rehabilitation
program apply. 
Applicant’s last alleged criminal conduct occurred in 2007. However, he did not
resolve those criminal allegations until he finished paying fines and costs in March 2011.
Further, as will be discussed below, he intentionally falsified the e-QIP he submitted in
2009, and knowingly presented the false testimony of his wife at the hearing of this case.
As a result, the following Mitigating Conditions (MC) do not apply: MC 32(a): so much time
has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and MC 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. The remaining mitigating conditions have no
applicability to the facts of this case.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
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. . . . (AG 18)
The SOR alleges numerous delinquent debts that have been charged off or
submitted for collection. Many of those accounts have been delinquent since 2007 and
2008. While Applicant submitted proof he has satisfied a few small debts and begun
making payments on some consolidated medical debts, other delinquent debts remain
outstanding and unresolved. DC 19(a): inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and DC
19(c): a history of not meeting financial obligations apply.
In his 2009 statement, Applicant attributed his delinquent debts to financial
immaturity and irresponsibility. He repeatedly asserted that he had no intention of paying
even the debts for which he admitted he was legally responsible. At the hearing, his wife
attributed, at least in part, their delinquent debts to the need to provide care and financial
support for her recently deceased mother. However, many of the debts have been
delinquent since 2008 and 2008. MC 20(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 does not apply.  
Applicant has satisfied a few small debts. He has made consistent payments on the
consolidated medical debts, only two of which can be concluded to apply to debts alleged
7
in the SOR. However, no payment has been made on the largest delinquent debt, owed
in the amount of $6,264, and no payment plan has been arrived at to satisfy that debt.
Applicant’s wife candidly admits that they do not have the money the creditor is demanding
to satisfy that debt. Further, while Applicant has made consistent payments toward the
consolidated medical debts, the balance owed is still over $7,000. MC 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.
As noted, Applicant is entitled to credit for satisfying a few small debts and making
consistent payments toward the consolidated medical debts. Accordingly, he is entitled to
some consideration under MC 20(d): the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. While his wife informally spoke with an
attorney seeking advice in resolving their delinquent debt and is saving money to actually
retain his services, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Applicant’s financial
problems are currently under control. MC 20(c): the person has received or is receiving
counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being
resolved or is under control does not apply. 
The remaining mitigating conditions have no applicability to the facts of this case.
Considering the length of time Applicant’s debts have remained delinquent, his belated
effort to begin to satisfy some of those debts, the amount of delinquent debt that remains
outstanding, his wife’s admission that they lack the financial resources to resolve the
largest outstanding delinquent debt, and Applicant’s assertions when he was interviewed
in 2009 that he did not intend to pay any of his delinquent debt, I conclude that the
mitigating condition that applies is insufficient to find that he has mitigated the financial
considerations security concern. 
Guideline E, 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 15)
Applicant failed to disclose multiple arrests, including the felony arrests for which he
eventually was remanded to serve a sentence of confinement at hard labor, in the e-QIP
he submitted in August 2009. He acknowledged that he consciously chose not to disclose
those arrests. His explanation for not disclosing the felonies, that he thought the felonies
were reduced to misdemeanors and, therefore, did not have to be disclosed, is not credible
considering his experience with the criminal justice system, the sentence originally
imposed, the amount of time he actually served, and the period of parole he served
following his release from confinement. His wife’s testimony that she falsified the e-QIP
without his knowledge is not credible considering the contents of the statement he provided
in August 2009. DC 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
8
status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary
responsibilities applies.
Considering all relevant and material facts and circumstances present in this case,
including Applicant’s effort in at least beginning to resolve his delinquent debts and the
character reference letters he submitted, the whole person concept, the factors listed in ¶
6.3.1 through ¶6.3.6 of the Directive, and the applicable disqualifying and mitigating
conditions, I find Applicant failed to mitigate the criminal conduct, financial considerations,
and personal conduct security concerns. He has not overcome the case against him nor
satisfied his ultimate burden of persuasion. It is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. Guideline J, Guideline F, and Guideline E
are decided against Applicant. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as
required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-o: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 2.b -g: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 2.h-j: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 2.k-v: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a and b: Against Applicant
Conclusion               
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.
Clearance is denied.
Henry Lazzaro
Administrative Judge