DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15–05313
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
November 8, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
dated December 15, 2014.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On March 27, 2016, the Defense
of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns
under Guidelines J and E for Applicant. 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 (AG) effective within the Department of Defense after
September 1, 2006. 
Applicant responded to the SOR on June 7, 2016, and he requested a hearing
before a Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge.  This case was
assigned to this Administrative Judge on August 8, 2016.  A notice of hearing was
issued on August 14, 2016, scheduling the hearing for September 16, 2016.  At the
hearing the Government presented thirteen exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits
1 through 13.  The Applicant presented two exhibits, which were admitted without
objection, referred to as Applicant’s Exhibits A and B.  The official transcript (Tr.) was
2
received on September 26, 2016.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 30 years old and is divorced.  He has a Bachelor’s degree in
Business Administration.  He is employed by a defense contractor as a Senior
Electronics Technician and a security clearance is necessary in connection with his
employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline J - Criminal Conduct).  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in criminal conduct.
Applicant denied the allegation set forth under this guideline. 
 From May 2005 to May 2011, Applicant served in the United States Navy until
he was honorably discharged.  During his military career he received a number of
awards and commendations, including at least four Navy Achievement Medals.  He has
held a security clearance since 2006.  He has worked for his current employer since
2010.    
Applicant is a car enthusiast, and his hobby is to modify cars and fix them up.  He
currently has about eight or nine cars.  In the past, he has also had as much as three
motorcycles at one time.  He admits that he has made twelve insurance claims against
his insurance company within the past ten years.  These claims range from vandalism,
theft, and robberies.  Applicant stated that he has just had “bad luck.”  He does admit,
however, that some of the claims were fraudulent.  (Tr. p. 34.)  On one occasion
Applicant failed to report that he recovered one of his motorcycles that he claimed had
been stolen.  He actually ended up reselling the motorcycle a few years later.  On
another occasion, Applicant’s vehicle was broken into and vandalized while in his
brother’s custody.  His brother made the police report, and stated that he had the
vehicle in his possession, and it was parked when it was vandalized.  Applicant also
made a claim against the same vehicle and said that he had the vehicle, and it was
parked within his possession.  Some items were stolen from the vehicle, and Applicant
actually recovered one of the items at a pawn shop.  Applicant testified that in total he
has had about fifteen separate vehicle break-ins.  (Tr. p. 39.)  
Applicant testified that his fraudulent claims were reported to the police by
someone he knew.  They contacted the police and reported that they thought Applicant
was making fraudulent insurance claims.  An investigation was conducted, and in June
2014, Applicant was charged with two counts of Insurance Fraud Claim, a felony, and
one count of Insurance Fraud Statement, a felony.  Applicant pled guilty to making a
false statement, and was convicted of Insurance Fraud Statement, a misdemeanor.
Applicant was sentenced to three years of probation, fined $285, and one day of jail.
(Government Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 15.)
3
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct).  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he has engaged in conduct
involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or an unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations.  
Applicant failed to inform his company of the circumstances surrounding his
charges for Insurance fraud even after being informed of the implications of failing to
provide that information.  Applicant explained that he told the Facility Security Officer
that he was charged with some felonies, but he could not provide any details concerning
his case under the advice of his lawyer.  (See, Government Exhibit 3, the incident report
dated March 18, 2014).  At the time, however, Applicant was not yet represented by
counsel.  Applicant was told by his company that if he did not disclose the
circumstances of the charges he could possibly lose his job and his security clearance.
Applicant refused to give any specifics and terminated the interview.  He never told the
company Security Officer the circumstances of the case.  He states that he eventually
told his supervisor in order to be able to take time off from work for court appearances.  
A letter from Applicant’s supervisor dated August 28, 2016, indicates that
Applicant is a talented electrician whose work is highly valued by the company.  He
states that the company was aware of Applicant’s situation and provided time off to
attend court hearings and other associated matters.  (Applicant’s Exhibit B.) 
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies
divided into "Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying
Factors and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)
The Concern.  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.
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
31.(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; and
31.(c)  allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the
person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted; and
31.(d) individual is currently on parole or probation.
Condition that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
4
Guideline E (Personal Conduct)
15.  The Concern.  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.
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
16.(c) credible adverse information is 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  
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, 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.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19, in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;
b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes;
5
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and 
i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct, which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.”  The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence, which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as
emphasized by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination
under this order . . . 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.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in criminal conduct and dishonesty that demonstrates poor
judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
continued holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the
burden then shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation
or mitigation, which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The
Applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant him a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has engaged in criminal conduct (Guideline J); and poor personal conduct
(Guideline E).  The totality of this evidence indicates poor judgment, unreliability and
untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of the scope and nature of the
6
Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or connection with his security
clearance eligibility.  Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has not introduced
persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome
the Government's case under the above mentioned guidelines. 
The evidence shows that the Applicant engaged in a pattern of criminal conduct
by making fraudulent claims against his insurance company.  He admits to at least two
incidents, but the truth of the matter is that he has made at least twelve claims in the
past ten years.  There is a great possibility that he committed fraud on other occasions
in which he was not charged or convicted.   Most recently, Applicant was charged, pled
guilty, and convicted of making a false statement, a misdemeanor.  He remains on
probation for this offense until 2017.  This crime is based on purposeful, intentional
deceit, directed at his integrity or lack thereof.  Given the seriousness and
egregiousness of this conduct, I am not inspired with the confidence that he has
changed his ways or shown sufficient mitigation.  
Under Guideline J, Criminal Conduct, Disqualifying Conditions 31.(a) a single
serious crime or multiple lesser offenses, and 31.(c)  allegation or admission of criminal
conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or
convicted, and 31.(d) individual is currently on parole or probation apply.  None of the
mitigating conditions are applicable.    
Applicant also engaged in poor personal conduct by deliberately refusing to
report his criminal conduct to his company security officer.  Applicant intentionally kept
his company in the dark as to the circumstances of his criminal case which shows bad
judgment and untrustworthiness.  Even when confronted with the fact that he could lose
his security clearance and his job, he refused to disclose the facts of his criminal case.
An applicant who is entrusted with the national secrets is required to do the right thing
when no one else is watching, even if they might never get caught.  Based upon his
past history, this Applicant cannot be trusted to do the right thing even when no one is
looking.
Under Guideline E, Personal Conduct, Disqualifying Condition 16.(c) credible
adverse information is 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 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, 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 apply.  None of
the mitigating conditions are applicable.  Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under
Guideline E, Personal Conduct.  
7
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  I have considered all of the evidence,
including the letter of recommendation written on his behalf.  (Applicant’s Exhibit B.)
Under the particular facts of this case, the totality of the conduct set forth under all of the
guidelines viewed as a whole, support a whole-person assessment of poor judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, a lack of candor, an unwillingness to comply with rules
and regulations, and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly
safeguard classified information.  
A security clearance is a privilege, not a right.  In order to meet the qualifications
for access to classified information, it must determined that the Applicant is, and has
been, sufficiently trustworthy on the job and in his everyday life to adequately protect
the Government’s national interest.  According to the standards set forth in the
Directive, based upon the conduct outlined here, this Applicant has demonstrated that
he is not trustworthy, and he does not meet the eligibility requirements for access to
classified information.  
    
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has failed to overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a  security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary
allegations expressed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the SOR.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.a.: Against the Applicant.
  Paragraph 2: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.a.: Against the Applicant.
 
     
DECISION
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
the Applicant.
Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge