KEYWORD: Guideline J; Guideline E
DIGEST: A plea of guilty is an admission of the facts underlying the offense and of the crime
itself.  Applicant’s arguments and testimony are in contradiction to her guilty plea.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12–03470.a1
DATE: 03/19/2014
DATE: March 19, 2014
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-03470
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Charles C. Maddox, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
August 22, 2013, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
2
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal
Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).
Applicant requested a hearing.  On December 20, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in some of her
findings of fact and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant is an employee of a Defense contractor.  She has held a security clearance since
1989.
In early 2011, Applicant pled guilty to one count of aiding and abetting the making of false
statements and one count of fraud in the second degree.  She was sentenced to 12 months probation,
a $1,000 fine, and 100 hours of community service.  
During a previous employment, Applicant worked for a governmental agency.  A position
came open, for which a friend of Applicant was suited.  Applicant advised the friend that persons
with a local residence would get hiring preference.  The friend did not live in the local area, so
Applicant assisted her in fabricating evidence of a local address, such as creating a false lease for
her friend’s use.
In addition, Applicant was the treasurer of a professional association.  In that capacity, she
had access to a bank account intended for the association.  She created an account in the name of
the association that was used to launder funds to show that her friend was paying rent for her
purported local address.  Applicant used the account to pay bills and to make loans for her friend.
She put her own money into the account, and her friend’s rent checks were deposited there.
Applicant also used the account to built up a college fund for her daughter.  As part of her plea, she
admitted that she improperly used money from the association while serving as treasurer.  
Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of her work performance, as well as
for her honesty and dependability.  After a 2010 investigation into this series of incidents, Applicant
cooperated with prosecutorial authorities.  The offenses to which she pled guilty were
misdemeanors.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s conduct raised concerns under both Guidelines alleged
in the SOR.  In further concluding that Applicant had failed to mitigate these concerns, the Judge
stated that the offenses were not minor and that they cast doubt upon her judgment and
trustworthiness.  She gave Applicant credit for the favorable evidence in the record, such as her
1“When [friend] applied for the job position, [Applicant] told [her] that [Applicant] had to pick a [city] resident
for the job. [Applicant] knew [friend] did not live in the [city].  In support of her application, [friend] asked [Applicant]
for assistance in the process, and [Applicant] gave [friend] a list of documents she needed to falsely show residency,
including, among others, a lease and rent payments.  As to the lease, [Applicant] pulled a sample lease off the Internet
and gave it to [friend].  Pursuant to [Applicant’s] suggestion, [friend] used the name of someone with whom [Applicant]
had done business as the purported landlord and his company as the purported owner of the property . . . When
[Applicant] was interviewed . . . she said she took the steps regarding [friend] . . . because she wanted to hire [friend].
Further, she said that, beyond using the [association bank account] to wash through the false rent payments by [friend],
she often used the account for personal purposes.  She admitted making from that account a $2,000 payment to her
husband’s credit union, a $5,000 payment to her own [bank] account, a $4,000 payment to [credit card service], and a
$2,000 payment to a co-worker . . . [Applicant] agreed that her treatment of the [association bank account] involved
improper accounting procedures, regardless of whether she had the intent to repay the money at some later date.  She
also acknowledged that she improperly advanced herself $7,000 from this account, although she claimed she ultimately
paid back this money.”  GE 2, Sentencing Memorandum, at 3-5.  
3
having held a clearance for many years, her good work references, and her years of public service.
However, the Judge described the offenses at issue here as a complicated and fraudulent plan that
entailed creating a fake lease, using the association’s bank account to launder money, and otherwise
assisting in her friend’s effort to receive a hiring preference to which the friend was not entitled.
The Judge stated that Applicant did not disclose the plan until she was investigated and questioned
in 2010, although after that she pled guilty.  
Discussion
Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that she had fabricated the lease used by her friend
to obtain a hiring preference.  She argues that the evidence shows that she had given the lease to her
friend earlier and did not know that it would be used to commit fraud.  We examine a Judge’s
findings of fact to see if they are supported by substantial record evidence, that is, “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all of the
contrary evidence in the record.”  ISCR Case No. 12-12172 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 9, 2014).  We note
first of all that Applicant pled guilty to the two offenses at issue here, one of which concerned willful
false statements, such as the lease.  A plea of guilty is an admission not only of the facts underlying
the offenses but of the crime itself.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-06937 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 10,
2013).  Applicant’s plea contradicts her testimony at the hearing and her arguments on appeal that
she was ignorant of the fraudulent use that her friend would make of the lease.  Moreover, a
prosecution Sentencing Memorandum, included in Government Exhibit (GE) 2, Answers to
Interrogatories, summarized the evidence underlying the offenses, including Applicant’s statements
to investigators.  This exhibit supports the Judge’s material findings of security concern.1  We
conclude that these findings are supported by substantial record evidence or constitute reasonable
inferences that could be drawn from the evidence.
4
Applicant cites to evidence favorable to her, such as her good employment record, in support
of her argument that the Judge erred in denying her a clearance.  The Judge made fairly detailed
findings about this evidence and discussed it in her analysis.  Applicant has not rebutted the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
11-10178 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Aug. 29, 2013).  Applicant’s argument on appeal consists basically of
a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence and with the Judge’s resolution of
conflicts within that evidence.  Applicant’s arguments are not sufficient to demonstrate that the
Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 11-12165 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 29, 2014).  We are required to defer to a Judge’s
credibility determinations.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  See ISCR Case No. 11-11059 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct.
15, 2013).  We find no reason to disturb the Judge’s credibility determination in this case or of her
resolution of evidentiary conflicts.
In challenging the Judge’s application of the mitigating conditions, Applicant contends that
the Judge erred in stating that she had not disclosed her plan until she was investigated in 2010.
Applicant points to evidence that she had tried to speak with officials in her office previously but
was rebuffed because of the ongoing investigation.  Applicant’s contention that she wanted to
discuss her misconduct earlier than 2010 does not undermine evidence that she failed to come
forward until after an investigation had been launched.  Even if the Judge had made findings in
precise accordance with Applicant’s brief, it is not likely that she would have issued a different
decision.
    
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  “The general standard is that a clearance may
be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”  Department
of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt
concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor
of the national security.” 
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed; Michael Y Ra’anan        
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed; Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
5
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board