1 
 
 
                                                                      
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )       ISCR Case: 14-02361   
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Pamela Benson, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
July 27, 2015 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
 
 Applicant has a history of criminal misconduct and poor judgment. Based upon a 
review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is 
denied.  
 
Statement of Case 
 
 On June 4, 2013, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (e-QIP). 
On July 18, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR), detailing security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) 
and J (Criminal Conduct). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, 
Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; 
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security 
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the 
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information 
(AG), effective within the DOD after September 1, 2006.  
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
 Applicant responded to the SOR (Answer) on August 7, 2014. (Item 1.) He 
requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record. 
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on April 24, 2015. A 
complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing three Items, was 
received by Applicant on April 30, 2015. He was afforded an opportunity to file 
objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of 
his receipt of the FORM. Applicant did not submit anything in response to the FORM 
within the 30-day period that ended May 30, 2015. DOHA assigned the case to me on 
June 29, 2015.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is 36 years old. He has been employed with a Government contractor 
since October 2011. He served in the Navy from approximately 1996 to 1998 and 
received a discharge under “Other than Honorable” conditions. He married in 2012 and 
has two minor children. (Answer; Item 2.) 
 
 The SOR alleges Applicant committed a number of criminal violations and that he 
falsified his e-QIP by omitting some of his arrests and convictions. Applicant admitted to 
SOR ¶¶ 1.b through 1.p. He denied SOR ¶ 1.a, because he was unaware of an 
outstanding warrant for his arrest. He failed to explicitly admit or deny SOR ¶ 2.a.  
 
 After a thorough and careful review of Applicant’s admissions (Item 1) and the 
FBI Criminal Justice Information records introduced into evidence (Item 3), I find: 
Applicant was: arrested and convicted for obtaining property under false pretenses in 
2009 (SOR ¶ 1.b); arrested and charged with issuing worthless checks in 2007 (SOR ¶ 
1.c); charged and convicted of felony forgery of a financial instrument in April 2006 
(SOR ¶ 1.d); charged with felony credit card or debit card abuse in November 2004 
(SOR ¶ 1.e); arrested and convicted of issuing worthless checks in February 2004 (SOR 
¶ 1.f); arrested and convicted of obtaining property by worthless check in December 
2003 (SOR ¶ 1.g); arrested in October 2003 for obtaining property by false pretenses, 
with a subsequent conviction for a lesser charge of obtaining property by worthless 
check (SOR ¶ 1.h); arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol 
(DUI) between 2006 and 2007 (SOR ¶ 1.j); arrested and charged with possession of 
marijuana in February 1998 (SOR ¶ 1.k); and received at least ten or more motor 
vehicle violations since 1999 (SOR ¶ 1.m). In June 1997, Applicant was discharged 
from the Navy under other than honorable conditions for writing bad checks and theft 
(SOR ¶ 1.i). Since 1997, he has been arrested and/or charged with issuing worthless 
checks or forging financial instruments 20 or more times (SOR ¶ 1.l).  
 
 On his June 4, 2013 e-QIP, Applicant identified only that he was arrested in 
“11/2007” for “worthless check” when he answered “Section-22 Police Record.” (Item 2.) 
He indicated, “No,” to the parts of Section 22 that inquired: “Have you EVER been 
charged with a felony offense?” and “Have you EVER been charged with an offense 
involving alcohol or drugs?” (Emphasis in original.) He intentionally omitted his 2009 
 
 
3 
 
 
arrest and conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses; his 2006 arrest and 
conviction for felony forgery; his November 2004 arrest for felony credit card abuse; his 
2006-2007 DUI charge; and his February 1998 charge of possession of marijuana in his 
answers to Section 22. 
 
 FBI records reflect that a warrant dated April 10, 2008, for Applicant’s arrest on a 
charge of forgery remains outstanding. (Item 3.) The record contains no outstanding 
warrant from August 2012 as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. 
 
 Applicant expressed remorse for his past criminal conduct. He indicated, “I will 
take ownership of everything I have done in my past, however that is exactly where I 
have kept it and maintain that it will always be kept. As a dark blemish on my past.” 
(Item 1.)   
 
The record lacks evidence concerning the quality of Applicant’s professional 
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect 
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. No character 
witnesses provided statements describing his judgment, trustworthiness, integrity, or 
reliability. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or character in person 
since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing.   
  
Policies 
 
 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 to be used 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s 
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According 
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable 
guidelines in the context 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 the 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.  
 
 
 
4 
 
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is 
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the 
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7 
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an 
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense 
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” 
 
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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 
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. 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in 
AG ¶ 15: 
 
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 ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying. The following disqualifying conditions are potentially applicable: 
 
(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;  
 
(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning 
relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent 
medical authority, or other official government representative;  
 
 
5 
 
 
(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; and 
 
(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, or (2) while in another country, 
engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country or that is legal in that 
country but illegal in the United States and may serve as a basis for 
exploitation or pressure by the foreign security or intelligence service or 
other group.  
 
 The evidence shows that Applicant has a history of criminal conduct, and that he 
failed to disclose his criminal conduct to the Government in his June 6, 2013 e-QIP. 
Further, he received an other than honorable discharge from the Navy in 1997.  
 
 With respect to the allegations concerning falsification of his June 2013 e-QIP, I 
find that the omissions were deliberate. He was aware of his 2009 arrest and conviction 
for obtaining property by false pretenses; his 2006 arrest and conviction for felony 
forgery; his November 2004 arrest for felony credit card abuse; his 2006-2007 driving 
under the influence charge; and his February 1998 charge of possession of marijuana, 
yet he failed to disclose them to the Government on his e-QIP. AG ¶¶ 16(a) and 16(b) 
are disqualifying. 
 
 Applicant’s other than honorable discharge and lengthy criminal history involving 
deception raise additional concerns regarding his personal conduct. The Government 
has established sufficient concerns under AG ¶¶ 16(c) and 16(e) to disqualify Applicant 
from possessing a clearance.  
 
 AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. The following 
are potentially applicable:  
 
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, 
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; 
(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 it is 
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, 
trustworthiness, or good judgment; 
 
 
6 
 
 
(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  
 
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate 
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. 
   
 None of the above conditions are fully mitigating. Applicant has a long history of 
exercising questionable judgment that continues through at least 2013, with the 
submission of false statements on his e-QIP. He made no prompt, good faith efforts to 
correct his deliberate omissions of his criminal conduct on his e-QIP. While he 
acknowledged his past criminal behavior and claimed it will not be repeated, he failed to 
present evidence of positive steps toward rehabilitation showing that similar future 
behavior in unlikely to recur.  
 
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Criminal Conduct is set out in 
AG ¶ 30: 
 
Criminal activity creates doubt about an Applicant’s judgment, reliability, 
and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s 
ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations. 
 
 AG ¶ 31 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying. The following are potentially applicable:  
 
(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; and 
 
(c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the 
person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted. 
 
Applicant has a history of multiple criminal arrests and convictions that occurred 
between 1997 and 2009, including 20 arrests relating to worthless checks or forging 
financial instruments; an arrest for possession of marijuana; and a DUI arrest. These 
offenses give rise to concerns about Applicant’s judgment and reliability both because 
of the nature of the offenses and the quantity of criminal offenses. The aforementioned 
disqualifying conditions have been established.  
 
Four Criminal Conduct mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 32 are potentially 
applicable:  
 
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it 
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur 
 
 
7 
 
 
and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or 
good judgment; 
 
(b) the person was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those 
pressures are no longer present in the person’s life; 
 
 (c) evidence that the person did not commit the offense; and 
 
(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. 
  
 While the majority of Applicant’s criminal conduct occurred during a 12-year span 
from 1997 to 2009, he continues to have an unresolved, outstanding warrant. He also 
engaged in criminal conduct as recently as 2013, when he falsified his e-QIP. Further, 
he presented little evidence to show that criminal conduct is unlikely in the future. 
Applicant’s criminal past continues to cast doubt on his trustworthiness and judgment. 
AG ¶ 32(a) does not provide full mitigation. 
 
 Applicant failed to present evidence to show that he was pressured into criminal 
acts. He admitted each of the allegations. Neither AG ¶¶ 32(b) nor 32(c) provide 
mitigation. 
 
 Applicant failed to introduce evidence of rehabilitation. While he expressed 
remorse for his past, he presented nothing to show job training or higher education, 
good employment record, or constructive community involvement. AG ¶ 32(d) does not 
provide full mitigation. 
 
 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 the applicant’s 
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the 
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of 
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation 
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
 
 
 
8 
 
 
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.        
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments 
under Guidelines E and J in my whole-person analysis. Applicant’s criminal conduct and 
personal conduct involved deception and forgery. His lengthy criminal history occurred 
largely over a 12-year period that ended in 2009, but despite the passage of time, 
remains unresolved due to an outstanding warrant and recent falsification of his e-QIP. 
The likelihood of recurrence is high. Overall, the record evidence raises doubts about 
Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude 
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from the cited adjudicative 
guidelines. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a:    For Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 1.b through 1.p:  Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline J:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a:    Against Applicant 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                                                   
 
Jennifer I. Goldstein 
Administrative Judge