KEYWORD:  Guideline E; Guideline J; Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant cites to some minor errors, such as the timing of theft charges.  These errors
did not likely affect the outcome of the case.  Therefore, they are harmless.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASE NO: 14-04190.a1
DATE: 01/18/2017
DATE: January 18, 2017
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-04190
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
December 22, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline J (Criminal
Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6
(Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On October 25, 2016, after
the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Arthur E.
Marshall, Jr., 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 failed to consider all of
the evidence and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous.  Consistent with the
following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has worked for Defense contractors since 2009.  He earns about $98,000 a year,
 and his wife earns between $150,000 and $160,000.  In 2000, Applicant discovered that a former
wife had been unfaithful to him.  As a result of their argument, Applicant was charged with assault
and battery.  He pled guilty and was sentenced to 90 days confinement, which was suspended.  A
couple of years later, he was charged and convicted of driving under a suspended license.  Later, he
was disciplined at work for failing to comply with regulations concerning the submission of
customer paperwork.
In 2008, Applicant worked in a secure facility.  He was experiencing difficulty in making
his family’s mortgage payments and did not disclose this to his wife.  Instead of seeking her
contribution, he made out checks to himself from his employer’s account and used the funds to pay
his mortgage.  All totaled, he took about $52,000 from his employer.  
Upon being confronted with the evidence, Applicant confessed to his employer and
subsequently to Federal investigators.  Applicant was terminated from his job.  Officials charged
Applicant with embezzlement, a felony, and a theft scheme exceeding $500, also a felony. 
Applicant pled guilty to the theft scheme and was sentenced to probation and restitution.  After
completing the probation, Applicant was granted a probation before judgment determination, a
conditional avoidance of sentence imposition.  
When he completed his security clearance application in 2013, Applicant stated that he had
left his prior employment through mutual agreement following charges of misconduct.  This was not
totally correct, insofar as he had actually been fired.  In 2015, Applicant’s theft record was
expunged.  He currently lives within his means and accepts his wife’s contribution to the household
finances.  Applicant has undergone therapy as a consequence of his criminal acts and has employed
a financial advisor.  
The Judge’s Analysis
Applicant’s conduct was alleged under Guidelines E and J.  His theft of funds and its
subsequent legal consequences were the basis for the Guideline F concerns.  The Judge entered
adverse findings for all of the SOR allegations.  Among other things, he noted that Applicant did
not disclose his criminal conduct until he was confronted with it by his employer.  He stated that
Applicant’s theft and its legal consequences occurred several years ago.  However, he concluded that
the severity of the misconduct was such that the passage of several years was not enough to
demonstrate mitigation.  
The Judge also cited to Applicant having received early release from probation.  However,
he concluded that the “egregious nature” of the theft remained a concern.  Decision at 7.  He also
noted that Applicant’s conduct was rooted in financial problems and entailed “an extraordinary
breach of the fiduciary trust extended to him by his former employer.”  Id.   The Judge noted that,
despite his objectively false SCA answer, Applicant had placed the Government on notice of his
criminal history.  
In the whole-person analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant’s assault and battery conviction
was troubling but that the couple had since divorced.  He also described the driving offenses as
minor.  However, the 2007 and 2008 incidents of work-related misconduct, especially the theft that
led to job termination and prosecution, were serious.  He repeated his conclusion that the passage
of several years was not sufficient to demonstrate mitigation. 
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge’s whole-person analysis did not incorporate significant
record evidence.  In support of his argument, he cites to the length of time since his last offense, the
expungement of his theft record, his employment record, his therapy, his admission of all the
allegations against him, etc.  The Judge made findings about these matters and discussed them in
his analysis.  Applicant’s argument is not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered
all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-02854 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2016). 
The Judge’s whole person analysis complies with the requirements of Directive ¶ 6.3, in that he
considered the totality of the evidence in reaching his decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06653
at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 18, 2016).  
Applicant cites to some minor errors, such as the timing of theft charges.  These errors did
not likely affect the outcome of the case.  Therefore, they are harmless.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
14-03601 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 1, 2015).  Applicant states that his loss of a clearance has affected his
ability to earn money and has caused strain on his family.  We are not permitted to consider the
impact of an unfavorable decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02619 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 7, 2016). 
The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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 Ra’anan        
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed:  James E. Moody       
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed:  James F. Duffy          
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board