1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 11-09724 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: John Bayard Glendon, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Richard L. Morris, Esq. 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access 
to classified information is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On July 25, 2011, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required for a position 
with a defense contractor. After an investigation conducted by the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM), the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant 
interrogatories to clarify or augment potentially disqualifying information. After reviewing 
the results of the background investigation and Applicant's response to the 
interrogatories, DOD could not make the affirmative findings required to issue a security 
clearance. On March 11, 2013, DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to 
Applicant detailing security concerns for personal conduct under Guideline E and 
criminal conduct under Guideline J. These actions were taken under Executive Order 
10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as 
 
 
2 
 
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) effective in the DOD on September 1, 2006. Applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the SOR on March 21, 2013. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on March 26, 2012. He admitted in part and denied 
in part the personal conduct allegations under SOR 1.a through SOR 1.d. He denied the 
allegation in SOR 1.e. He admitted and denied in part the criminal conduct allegation 
under SOR 2.a, consistent with his admissions and denials under SOR paragraph 1. He 
requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared 
to proceed on June 7, 2013. The case was assigned to me on June 18, 2013. The 
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on June 
28, 2013, for a hearing on July 23, 2013. I convened the hearing as scheduled. The 
Government offered 17 exhibits, which I marked and admitted into the record without 
objection as Government exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 17. Applicant and one witness 
testified. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on July 31, 2013. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact. The SOR lists five actions by Applicant of personal 
conduct security concern. Four of the five actions are cross-alleged as criminal conduct 
security concerns. Applicant admitted to certain aspects of each of the allegations. His 
admissions are included in my findings of fact.  
 
Applicant is a 37-year-old security analyst for a defense contractor. He was 
basically raised by his grandparents because his father was on active duty in the Navy 
and his mother accompanied him on assignments. He is a high school graduate with a 
bachelor’s and master’s degrees. He has never been married but he has sole custody 
of his 11 year old daughter. Applicant served four years on active duty in the Marine 
Corps from 1998 until 2002 as a radio telecommunication specialist. He left the Marine 
Corps for a few months but returned and served for four more years from 2002 until 
2006 as a network security specialist. He then transferred to the Marine Corp Reserve 
and served a few years supporting a security battalion. He received honorable 
discharges at the completion of each of the active duty tours. He again returned to 
active duty in 2008 but was discharged after a court-martial with a bad conduct 
discharge in 2010. (Tr. 36-41; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated July 25, 2011) 
 
The SOR alleges security concerns for both personal conduct and criminal 
conduct. Under criminal conduct, it is alleged Applicant in June 2010 was court-
martialed for disrespect and disobedience, false statement, wrongfully and willfully 
impersonating an officer, and disobeying an order, and sentenced to a bad conduct 
discharge, four months confinement, and reduction to private E-1 (SOR 1.a); that he 
was convicted in October 2002 for fraudulent use of a birth certificate and driver’s 
license and sentenced to confinement and probation which were suspended (SOR 1.b); 
that he was convicted in September 2002 for false summons or false report to police 
 
 
3 
 
and sentenced to jail for 30 days confinement suspended (SOR 1.c); that Applicant 
appeared in a state court for extradition on the above two offenses (SOR 1.d); and that 
he had a person take the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) for him to enter the 
military (SOR 1.e). The allegation of criminal conduct is a cross-allegation of the 
offenses in SOR 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, and 1.d as criminal conduct (SOR 2.a).  
When Applicant was in high school, his career plans were to join the military. He 
discussed his plans with a military recruiter and took the Armed Forces Qualification 
Test (AFQT). Unfortunately, he was unable to pass the test. He took the test a number 
of times both before and after he graduated from high school but continued to fail the 
test. In 2000, after completing high school and at the suggestion and assistance of his 
recruiter, Applicant arranged for an individual to take the AFQT for him. Applicant, the 
individual, and the recruiter went to a state motor vehicle office so the individual could 
obtain a driver’s license using Applicant’s birth certificate and social security 
information. The driver’s license was obtained in Applicant’s name with the individual’s 
picture. The individual used the driver’s license as identification to take and pass the 
AFQT in Applicant’s name. Applicant was able to enter active duty in the Marine Corps. 
In November 2001, Applicant and the individual that took the test for Applicant admitted 
to Marine Corps military police investigators their fraudulent actions to obtain the 
driver’s license and use it to take the AFQT. (Tr. 41-42, 56-59; Gov. Ex. 12, Individual’s 
Statement, dated November 1, 2009; Gov. Ex. 13, Applicant Statement, dated 
November 16, 2001; SOR 1.e)  
State A, that issued the driver’s license, learned of the fraudulent application and 
charged Applicant with criminal offenses. Applicant was stationed as a Marine in state 
B. State A issued a warrant for Applicant’s arrest and a request for his extradition state 
B. In December 2001, Applicant appeared in the local court in state B with his first 
sergeant, waived any objection to the extradition, and returned with his first sergeant to 
the state A. In April 2002, Applicant appeared in court in state A and was charged with 
the felony offenses of fraudulent use of a birth certificate to obtain a driver’s license. In 
October 2002, he pled guilty to a misdemeanor and sentenced to 12 months of 
confinement suspended, and supervised probation for a year. (SOR 1.b) In September 
2002, state A’s motor vehicle department also charged him with conspiracy to commit a 
felony by having another person request a driver’s license in his name. He was found 
guilty and sentenced to a 30-day suspended jail term. (SOR 1.c) The criminal offenses, 
except for the extradition, were cross-alleged as criminal conduct (SOR 2.a) 
Applicant over time and in different settings told many different variations of the 
incident and the criminal charges. On a security clearance application Applicant 
completed on March 26, 2001, Application listed no criminal offenses. At that time, he 
had not been charged with a criminal offense. (Gov. Ex. 15, SF 86, dated March 26, 
2001) As noted above, in November 2001, he admitted his involvement in the false 
driver’s license incident to military police investigators. In a May 2005 security clearance 
application, Applicant listed the incident as a false identification misdemeanor. (Gov. Ex. 
14, SF 86, dated May 27, 2005) In response to a question concerning his criminal 
record on a security clearance application submitted on September 16, 2009, Applicant 
listed the offense but stated it arose from his brother trying to use Applicant’s 
 
 
4 
 
identification card. He stated that his brother used one of his old identifications to obtain 
a new driver’s license issued in Applicant’s name and birthday. His brother was 
convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to a jail term. Applicant stated he was 
convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to one day of community service. Applicant 
did not state why he was convicted since it was his brother that committed the offense. 
Also, Applicant did not list the other state A offense of conspiracy to commit a felony. 
(Gov. Ex. 10, Criminal Record, dated March 11, 2010; Gov. Ex. 11, FBI Criminal Record 
Check, dated August 2, 2011; Gov. Ex. 16, e-QIP, dated September 16, 2009, at 37)  
Applicant was twice questioned In August and September 2011 by a security 
investigator about his criminal record, his civilian employment, his finances, his military 
service, and other issues. In regard to the two convictions stemming from the false 
driver’s license, Applicant told a number of variations of the convictions. He initially 
stated his wallet had been stolen and someone used his identity. He stated that the 
false driver’s license charge was a result of the theft and he denied that the convictions 
pertained to him and that the convictions must be connected to someone using the 
same name but a different spelling. In the second interview, he denied that he was 
involved in having a person take the AFQT for him (SOR 1.e), or the conviction for 
fraudulent use of a birth certificate (SOR 1.b). He did admit the conviction for conspiracy 
to commit a felony pertained to him (SOR 1.c). He stated that he did not disclose his 
arrests to potential employers because the arrests were expunged from his record. 
(Gov. Ex. 3, Response to Interrogatories, dated November 29, 2012, See Testimonies 
at 2, 28, and 31)  
Later in the September 2011 interview, Applicant described the birth certificate 
incident as providing, at the request of the recruiter, his birth certificate to an underage 
recruit with his birth certificate to enable the underage recruit to enlist. The underage 
recruit, the recruiter, and Applicant were separately charged and tried. He did not testify 
at the trials. He stated he was found not guilty of the first offense, but was found guilty of 
the second offense. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and a fine. He further stated 
that the punishments were dropped because he was on active duty. His conviction and 
his extradition were later expunged. As to the second offense, he stated that the police 
got his explanation “backwards.” He was tried on that offense and received a sentence 
of 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Since he was on active duty, the sentence was 
reduced to 30 days of community service. (Gov. Ex. 3, Response to Interrogatories, 
dated November 29, 2012, See Testimonies at 11)  
In the September 2011 interview, Applicant again stated that his birth certificate 
and social security information were used to assist an underage recruit to enter the 
military. There were many discrepancies in Applicant’s testimony in the two interviews. 
The investigator extensively questioned Applicant and Applicant continued to recite 
facts that were inconsistent with his previous testimony. (Gov. Ex. 3, Response to 
Interrogatories, dated November 29, 2012, See, Testimonies at 34-35) 
 In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the fraudulent use of a birth 
certificate offense (SOR 1.a), but only admitted in part and denied in part the allegations 
pertaining to the conspiracy to commit a felony and the extradition appearance (SOR 
 
 
5 
 
1.c and 1.d). At the hearing, Applicant stated he denied the allegation in response to the 
SOR because he was scared. (Tr. 60-61) He initially admitted participating in the fraud, 
but he placed the blame on the recruiter and stated he did not know how he passed the 
test. (Tr. 42-45) He admitted that he had denied all allegations when speaking to the 
security investigator. However, at the hearing on July 23, 2013, he admitted that the 
allegations are true. (Tr. 61-63)   
In 2008, Applicant received orders from the Marine Corps assigning him to a unit 
in Okinawa. Applicant did not want to be deployed because he had to care for his father 
who was seriously ill, and because he was the sole caregiver and support for his 11-
year-old daughter. He attempted to have the orders changed through normal channels 
but his requests were denied. In talking to his unit commander, Applicant made 
disrespectful comments about the commander. After the attempts, a number of calls 
were made to his unit from an “Admiral Thomas” asking for Applicant to be taken off 
orders. Applicant’s unit commander alleged that Applicant made the calls impersonating 
an admiral. The calls were traced to a phone registered to Applicant. Applicant was tried 
by special court-martial for disrespect to an officer, impersonating an officer, and 
wrongful endeavor to influence a statement. He pled not guilty, but was found guilty of 
all offenses. He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for four 
months, and reduction to private E-1. He served 80 days in the brig and was 
subsequently discharged from the Marine Corps with a bad conduct discharge. (Gov. 
Ex. 4, Charge Sheet, dated April 4, 2008, Gov. Ex. 5, Court-Martial Order, dated 
November 29, 2007; Gov. Ex. 6, Court-Martial Action and Order, dated July 14, 2009; 
Gov. Ex. 7, Trial counsel’s Result of Trial, dated January 15, 2009) 
Applicant did not list his court-martial in a security clearance application he 
completed on September 2009. He did note the court action against him for the use of 
his birth certificate. However, he stated that it was his brother that used his ID card to 
obtain a driver’s license to show he was over 21 years old. He stated that his brother 
was convicted and that he, Applicant, received one day of community service. (Gov. Ex. 
16, e-QIP, dated September 16, 2009) Applicant submitted another security clearance 
application in March 2010, and did not list any criminal convictions. (Gov. Ex. 8, e-QIP, 
dated March 22, 2010) Applicant completed an application for federal employment in 
February 2010 and again did not list any criminal convictions. (Gov. Ex. 9, Declaration 
for Federal Employment, dated February 26, 2010) Applicant submitted another security 
clearance application in July 2011, and did not list his court-martial. He did note the 
conviction for conspiracy and using an expired ID card as a misdemeanor conviction 
that was expunged. (Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated July 25, 2011)  
When interviewed in August 2011 by the security investigator and asked about 
the incident, Applicant told the investigator that his commander told him about the 
phone calls and showed him a telephone log of calls that he recognized as originating 
from his mother’s phone. He was at his mother’s house a few days later when his 
mother told him about calls that she and his uncle made to the command. He told the 
story to his command who did not believe him. He was then court-martialed and found 
guilty of the offenses. He told the investigator he spent four months in the brig. (Gov. 
Ex. 3, Response to Interrogatories, See Testimonies, dated August 14, 2011, at 7-8)  
 
 
6 
 
On the second interview with the security investigator, Applicant stated he 
learned of the calls from “Admiral Thomas” from his command. He denied making the 
calls. He told the investigator that he met his mother about two days after being told of 
the calls. He told the investigator about his uncle making the calls. He told the 
investigator that his uncle was a retired federal employee but did not know when and for 
whom he worked. Applicant told the investigator two different versions of his uncle’s 
military or civilian service. Applicant told the investigator that he did not testify at the 
court-martial and never told anyone that his uncle made the calls. (Gov. Ex. 3, 
Response to Interrogatories, See, Testimonials, dated September 29, 2011 at 33-34) At 
the hearing, Applicant admitted he made all of the calls to the command saying he was 
“Admiral Thomas.” (Tr. 45-47, 63-64) He admitted denying all allegations to the security 
investigator that he later admitted were correct at the hearing. He stated be was 
embarrassed about making the calls and impersonating a military officer. (Tr. 62-63) 
The security investigator conducted an extensive interrogation of Applicant about 
his criminal conduct, court-martial, employment and other matters. In responding to the 
security investigator’s inquiries, Applicant told shifting stories. The investigator opined 
that he had trouble making sense of Applicant’s explanations as Applicant jumped 
around and mentioned different jobs and different explanations. The investigator tried to 
terminate the initial interview so Applicant could research the areas of concern and 
come back when he could properly recall his employment and answer the investigator’s 
questions. Applicant refused, so the investigator continued the interview. He conducted 
a second round of questions after he reviewed Applicant’s answers in the first interview 
and had an opportunity to gather more facts. A review of Applicant’s answers to the 
security investigator establishes that Applicant was not truthful, honest, and forthcoming 
in response to the questions of the security investigator. (Gov. Ex. 3, Response to 
Interrogatories, See Testimonies, dated August 14, 2011) 
Applicant’s mother testified that Applicant was one of seven children. Applicant 
had a close relationship with his father. He was devastated when his father became sick 
in 2008 and almost became sick himself. He volunteered to donate a kidney to his 
father if that would help his father recover. He was extremely upset when he received 
orders to deploy because he wanted to stay and take care of his father and other family 
members. Applicant’s mother was proud of Applicant when he entered the Marine 
Corps. After his court-martial, he continued to carry himself as a Marine. He went to 
school and finished his degrees. He never talked against the Marine Corps. Her son is 
honest and would do anything to care for her and his family. (Tr. 24-37)  
 
 
 
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
 
 
7 
 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must 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. 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 for obtaining a favorable security 
decision.  
 
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 protect 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Analysis 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 
 
8 
 
 A security concern is raised because conduct involving questionable judgment, 
untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations 
can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect 
classified information. Personal conduct is always a security concern because it asks 
the central question whether the person’s past conduct justifies confidence the person 
can be entrusted to properly safeguard classified information. (AG ¶ 15)   
 
Applicant’s personal conduct was of security concern starting in 2000. He 
conspired in 2000 with a recruiter and another individual to have the individual obtain a 
driver’s license using Applicant’s birth certificate and then take the AFQT for Applicant 
so Applicant could enter the Marine Corps. When state A learned in 2002 of the 
fraudulent obtaining of a driver’s license, Applicant was extradited from state B where 
he was serving in the Marine Corps and tried and convicted in two separate trials in 
state A for fraudulent use of a birth certificate and conspiracy to commit a felony. In 
2010, Applicant was court-martialed by the Marine Corps. He was sentenced to a bad 
conduct discharge, reduction to the lowest grade, and three months in the brig for 
disrespect and disobedience to an officer, making a false statement, wrongfully, willfully 
impersonating a commissioned officer, and disobeying an order. The Government 
alleged the extradition from state B as a security concern. (SOR 1.e) The extradition 
was an integral part of the criminal process against Applicant and not a separate 
criminal action. I conclude that the extradition is not a security concern.  
 
The remaining incidents raise Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 
16(c) (credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not 
sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, 
when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable 
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with 
rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not 
properly safeguard protected information); AG ¶ 16(d) (credible adverse information that 
is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for 
an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information 
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, 
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other 
characteristics indicting that the person may not properly safeguard protected 
information. This includes but is not limited to consideration of: (3) a pattern of 
dishonesty or rule violations); and AG ¶ 16(e) (personal conduct, or concealment of 
information about one's conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, 
manipulation, or duress, such as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect 
the person's personal, professional, or community standing).  
 
 The Government produced sufficient evidence to establish the disqualifying 
conditions as required in AG ¶¶ 16(c), 16(d), and 16(e). The burden shifted to Applicant 
to produce evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns 
under financial considerations. An applicant has the burden to refute an established 
allegation or prove a mitigating condition, and the burden to prove or disprove it never 
 
 
9 
 
shifts to the Government. Applicant raised conditions that may mitigate the security 
concern 
 
 I considered Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 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 unique circumstances that is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on 
the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment); 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); and AG ¶ 17(e) (the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or 
eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress). These mitigating 
conditions do not apply.  
 
  Applicant started to engage in fraudulent and deceitful conduct in 2002 when he 
had an individual obtain a driver’s license in Applicant’s name to take the AFQT in his 
name. He was tried and convicted of fraud and conspiracy in a state court in 2002 for 
the conspiracy and fraud in obtaining a driver’s license. In 2008, he impersonated an 
officer in his attempt to get released from deployment orders. He was convicted and 
discharged from the Marine Corps with a bad conduct discharge. He continued his 
deceitful and fraudulent conduct when he denied his involvement in the incidents and 
blamed the incidents on others when interviewed by security investigator in 2011 as well 
as responding to the SOR in 2012. He finally admitted his fraudulent and deceitful 
actions at the hearing before me in July 2013. His misconduct is not minor since he was 
actively engaged in fraudulent and deceitful conduct. While the initial incident took place 
over 13 years ago, his fraudulent and deceitful conduct is current since his pattern of 
behavior has continued at least into 2013. Applicant’s involvement in the incidents is 
substantiated since it he was tried and convicted of the offenses in state court and at a 
Marine Corps court-martial. Applicant has failed to present sufficient information to 
mitigate the security concerns based on his conduct for personal conduct. 
 
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 ¶ 30). Applicant was tried and convicted 
in state court for fraudulent use of a birth certificate to obtain a driver’s license and 
conspiracy to commit a felony. He was convicted in both cases of a misdemeanor. He 
received a court-martial in 2010 for disrespect to an officer, impersonating an officer, 
false statement, and disobeying an order. This information raises Criminal Conduct 
Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 31(a) (a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses), 
and AG ¶ 31(c) (allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the 
person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted). Applicant’s criminal 
actions raise questions about his ability and willingness to comply with laws, rules, and 
regulations.  
 
 
 
10 
 
I considered all of the mitigating conditions under criminal conduct, especially 
Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 32(a) (so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior 
happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur 
and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good 
judgment); and 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).  
 
No criminal conduct mitigating condition applies. Applicant admits he knowingly 
and freely committed the fraudulent criminal conduct at his security hearing. The 
admitted criminal actions did not happen under any unusual circumstances. Applicant’s 
actions show a repeated course of lying and deceitful conduct and for not following rules 
and regulations that is likely to recur. There does not appear to be any evidence of 
rehabilitation or an understanding by Applicant of his criminal conduct. His conduct 
continues to cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  
 
Whole-Person Analysis 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
the circumstances. An 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 a security clearance 
must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered that Applicant served 
eight years on active duty in the Marine Corps and twice received an honorable 
discharge. This good service is counter-balanced by his bad conduct discharge. I 
considered the testimony of his mother as to his reputation for honesty.  
 
The Government did not charge Applicant with falsification of relevant facts on 
security clearance applications, to security investigators, or in other aspects of the 
security clearance process. There is considerable evidence that reflects adversely on 
 
 
11 
 
Applicant’s credibility. I had considered Applicant’s repeated denial of his involvement in 
the scheme to obtain a false driver’s license as well as have an individual take the 
AFQT for him. He told different stories about the incidents blaming various people. He 
denied his involvement in the calls to his command attempting to change his 
deployment orders. He blamed the calls on the conduct of others. While Applicant 
admitted his conduct at the hearing before me on July 23, 2013, the course of conduct 
of denials and stories show that he is totally lacking in credibility. The security 
investigator who conducted extensive interviews of Applicant had difficulty determining 
the true facts. Applicant weaved many stores that showed his ability to lie and fabricate 
facts. While I seriously question Applicant’s credibility, I do find that he told the truth at 
the hearing when he admitted that he was an active participant in having another 
person obtain a driver’s license in his name and take the AFQT for him. He also told the 
truth when he admitted that it was he who called the command posing as an admiral 
requesting to have Applicant removed from deployment.  
 
Applicant’s behavior was deceitful, reckless, irresponsible, and showed poor 
judgment. He acknowledged his misconduct only recently. His action to obtain a 
fraudulent driver’s license, have someone take the AFQT for him, and make calls 
impersonating an officer, indicates that he has questionable judgment, is untrustworthy, 
lacks reliability, and is unwilling to comply with rules and regulations. These incidents 
raise questions about Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect 
classified information. The incidents indicate he may not properly handle, manage, or 
safeguard classified information. The record evidence leaves me with questions and 
doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these 
reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the personal conduct and criminal 
conduct security concerns.  
 
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 E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.d:   Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 1.e:    For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline J:    AGAINST APPLICATN 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:    Against Applicant 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
 
 
12 
 
 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. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge