1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 17-01856 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Carroll Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Jeffery D. Billet, Esq. 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
BENSON, Pamela C., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline E (Personal 
Conduct) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). National security eligibility 
for access to classified information is denied.  
 
     Statement of the Case 
 
 On May 28, 2015, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA). 
On September 22, 2017, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DOD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), detailing security 
concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline M (Use of Information 
Technology). (Items 1 and 3) The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865, 
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; 
DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review 
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines 
(AG) effective within the DOD on June 8, 2017.    
  
 Applicant answered the SOR on October 21, 2017, and he provided documents 
with his response. Applicant obtained counsel and requested a hearing before an 
 
2 
 
 
administrative judge. He denied SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.a and 2.a. He admitted in part, 
and denied in part, SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.b and 1.c. On May 2, 2018, the case was 
assigned to me. On May 29, 2018, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 
issued a notice of Hearing, setting the hearing for June 13, 2018.  
 
 During the hearing, Department Counsel offered Government Exhibit (GE) 1 
through 4 into evidence. Applicant’s counsel objected to GE 3 and GE 4, which I 
admitted into evidence over counsel’s objection. Applicant’s counsel offered Applicant 
Exhibit (AE) A through O, which I entered into evidence without objection. Applicant also 
called his daughter to testify on his behalf. I held the record open until July 13, 2018, in 
the event either party wanted to submit additional documentation. No additional 
information was received by either party. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on 
June 21, 2018, and the record was closed on July 13, 2018. 
 
     Evidentiary Ruling 
 
 Applicant’s counsel objected to the admissibility to GE 3, which appears to be a 
Memorandum for the Record (MFR) dated August 2017, providing information about 
Applicant’s investigation, with attached invoices submitted by Applicant, and the 
investigative findings. It also reports an admission by Applicant that he fabricated the 
invoices. The basis for counsel’s objection was on multiple grounds, to include it does 
not fit any exception to the hearsay rule, it’s inherently unreliable, the attached exhibits 
are illegible, and the document is an incomplete summary. In addition, counsel objected 
to GE 4, which is a JPAS entry. Applicant’s Counsel acknowledged that a JPAS entry is 
an official record created in the regular course of DOD business, but his objection to this 
particular JPAS entry is that it is unreliable, and because the JPAS entry is hearsay. 
The JPAS entry with Applicant’s statement at his hearing is cumulative. I gave 
Applicant’s hearing statement greater weight than the JPAS entry.   
 
 The MFR is an investigative report summary from Applicant’s former employer, 
with attached fraudulent receipts that Applicant provided for reimbursement, all of which 
are relevant and material evidence. Applicant’s admissions are of a party opponent and 
according to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), they are not hearsay. Investigative 
reports constitute an official record within the meaning of Directive ¶ E3.1.20, and as 
such they are admissible without an authenticating witness. See ISCR Case No. 08-
08085 at 4 n.3 (App. Bd. Apr. 21, 2010). The JPAS entry is an official record conducted 
in the regular course of business by the DOD. It substantiates information in the MFR, 
and the JPAS entry was created at or near the time of the security incident. In addition, 
JPAS is the system used by DOD to determine, in part, the security eligibility 
information for all DOD civilian and military personnel and DOD contractors. The 
National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) makes it a 
requirement for all DOD contractors to report security incidents in JPAS, which 
Applicant’s former employer did in this instance, as required. The JPAS entry has 
information that corroborates the MFR, and it also reports Applicant’s admission. Thus, I 
overruled counsel’s objection to both exhibits, admitted both GE 3 and GE 4 into 
 
3 
 
 
evidence, and I have accorded the facts therein the appropriate weight given the record 
as a whole.  
Findings of Fact 
 
Having thoroughly considered the evidence in the record, I make the following 
findings of fact:  Applicant is 48 years old. He earned a bachelor’s degree in 2007, and 
master’s degrees in 2012 and 2017. He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in computer 
science with a focus in cyber security. Applicant was married in 1993 and divorced in 
1999. He remarried in 1999. He has two adult children, ages 26 and 23. He has three 
adult stepdaughters, ages 47, 40, and 38. (Tr. 36-37; GE 1) 
 
Applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard in December 1993. He received a 
general discharge under honorable conditions in January 1996 due to being absent 
without leave. Applicant was previously employed by a DOD contractor from April 2009 
until February 2015. He submitted his resignation to this employer in February 2015, 
and he was unemployed the following one-to-two months. Applicant started employment 
with another DOD contractor in April 2015. He is an electrical engineering manager and 
supervises approximately 19 employees. Applicant currently possesses a Top Secret 
DOD security clearance. (Tr. 32-33, 38-40; GE 1)  
 
SOR allegation ¶ 1.a alleges that Applicant resigned from his employment in 
February 2015, in lieu of termination by his former employer, due to falsifying financial 
documents he submitted for reimbursement during temporary duty assignments. 
Applicant admitted that he submitted his resignation in February 2015, but denied that 
he did so in lieu of termination.  Department Counsel submitted a JPAS Incident History 
document (GE 4) dated March 5, 2015, which states: 
 
Between October 2014 and February 2015, …Special Investigations 
conducted an investigation on this employee. In November and December 
2014, the employee was interviewed by … investigators. During the 
interview, the employee admitted that he had created and fabricated 
monthly invoices throughout his Temporary Duty (TDY) assignment 
period. Subsequent investigative activities substantiated his admission. 
On 12 Feb 2015, a Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) was held and it was 
determined that the employee would be allowed to Resigned (sic) in-lieu-
of Termination. Additionally, he will be coded in the … Hiring database as 
“Not eligible for rehire.” 
 
Applicant testified that he did not falsify his reimbursable expenses during his 
TDY assignment, which began in the fall of 2013. He submitted financial documentation 
through an expense reporting system via computer, to include invoices for services and 
maintenance for his permanent residence, as well as expenses related to his rental 
house and other expenditures while TDY. Applicant submitted invoices for pool service 
and lawn service at his permanent residence, and he stated that no one, to include his 
supervisor, ever questioned the validity of these reported expenses. (Tr. 43-49; AE D) 
 
 
4 
 
 
Applicant testified that he had a Hispanic man who took care of his lawn, and he 
had another Hispanic man who maintained the pool at his home. Applicant and his 
spouse always paid these workers in cash. These workers spoke little English and were 
not sophisticated businessmen who provided customer receipts. Applicant created his 
own invoices for these paid services which he submitted to his former employer for 
reimbursement. Applicant made the invoices on his computer by using a template. 
When Applicant was asked at the hearing why the submitted invoices looked like 
authentic business invoices, Applicant explained he did this only to assist him with his 
record keeping. The invoices were never intended to defraud the company. (Tr. 50-54; 
112-117; AE E, F)  
 
Applicant was also questioned why the invoices were numbered in a random 
way, and why he had some invoices showing “N&R Landscaping,” but on the bottom of 
the same invoice, in small print: “Make all checks to CNA Landscaping.” Applicant 
stated that the numbering of the invoices was most likely “auto-generated,” but he was 
not completely certain. His explanation for the interchangeable CNA and N&R 
Landscaping on the same invoice was that he had used the invoice for CNA 
Landscaping during a previous TDY assignment that was saved in his computer. 
Applicant stated he never paid by check, he paid all services in cash. The TDY rules 
allow $300 per month for lawn and pool maintenance expenses, and Applicant 
submitted invoices for these services in the amount of about $270 every month. During 
his background Subject Interview, Applicant told the investigator that he had a 
handwritten receipt from a teenager in the neighborhood who mowed his lawn. 
Applicant admitted during cross examination that the teenager’s services (rather than 
his previous reference to an Hispanic man) were invoiced by Applicant as N&R 
Landscaping. (Tr. 114-116, 124 138-139) 
 
Applicant’s former employer first became suspicious that Applicant had 
fabricated a moving expense of about $2,000, after a finance analyst questioned 
Applicant’s TDY status in late October 2014. Applicant’s former employer initiated an 
investigation, which concluded that Applicant did, in fact, submit fraudulent financial 
records, to include records for pool services, moving services, furniture lease expenses, 
lodging expenses, for a combined total of $11,893.75. In addition, the investigation 
found suspected fraudulent expenses for lawn services, rental car gas/oil change 
expense, and tools and small equipment charges, which totaled $2,217.51. (GE 3) 
 
Applicant testified that when his initial TDY assignment was completed in late 
2014, he saw that there were funds available for a move from his TDY location back to 
his residence. When his new TDY status started shortly thereafter, there were also 
funds available to move from his residence back to the same TDY location. The 
maximum limit for the move was 2,000 pounds, and Applicant claimed 2,000 pounds of 
items moved on both occasions. Applicant hired his daughter to do both moves for him. 
Applicant estimated both moves at the 2,000 pound limit, but he also admitted that he 
never weighed the moving truck on either occasion. (Tr. 55-63, 117-122) 
 
 
5 
 
 
 Applicant claimed that his daughter had just started her own moving company 
with a Las Vegas address. At that time his daughter did not actually live in Las Vegas, 
but it was her intention to eventually move there. Applicant did not keep the receipts for 
the moving boxes and other supplies he purchased for the move, nor did he keep 
receipts for the gas expense. His daughter did not know how to bill the move, so 
together they accessed a website and created the invoices, which were then submitted 
for reimbursement. The invoice did not cite his daughter’s name, but a logistics 
company with a logo. The listed address for the moving company’s invoice was 
obtained after they drove by a property that his daughter considered as a possible 
location for her new business. Applicant admitted that his daughter never moved into 
that property, and her moving business has not moved any other clients. The logo on 
the invoice is not a registered logo used by the company. The moving invoice dated 
September 29, 2014, (from TDY location to his residence) totaled $2,209.04, and the 
moving invoice dated October 8, 2014, (from his residence back to TDY location) 
totaled $2,294.04. Applicant claimed that he had some furniture from his brother-in-law 
that needed to be returned from his TDY location. Applicant brought his own personal 
items on the move back, just a little over a week later, to his TDY location. Applicant 
testified that he spoke about the move details with his supervisor, and she did not have 
a problem with it. No substantiating information about this conversation was provided by 
his former supervisor at the hearing. Applicant stated he paid approximately $4,000 in 
cash to his daughter for her moving services. He did not provide a cancelled check 
showing a $4,000 payment to her. (Tr. 55-63; 117-120, AE G; GE 3) 
 
Applicant rented a home at his TDY location, and he also needed to rent furniture 
for the home. Applicant submitted a contract for the rent-to-own furniture at the hearing. 
(AE H) He stated that his former employer approved the contract. Applicant did not 
submit any itemized expense report or statements for the weekly rental transactions, 
despite that the expenses were billed to his corporate credit card. Applicant created 
another invoice showing that the monthly cost of the rent-to-own furniture was $430, 
which he submitted for reimbursement. Applicant stated; “So, I just created a document 
that would allow them (former employer) to see what exactly was getting paid 
for…those are the documents I made to verify those expenses.” (Tr. 64-67; AE H, I) 
 
I questioned Applicant about the contract for the rent-to-own furniture, which 
showed on the contract the weekly rental rate was $76.16. (AE H) When I calculated 
four-and-a-half weeks by this amount, it showed that at most, he should only have a 
monthly cost of about $342.72 to rent furniture. I asked why Applicant submitted 
invoices for a monthly cost of $430, when this could not possibly be the correct amount. 
(AE I; GE 3) Applicant admitted he mistakenly invoiced the wrong amount, and he had 
to repay back the difference to his former employer. Applicant also stated that his 
former employer estimated approximately $10,000 of expenses that were disapproved 
for legitimate reimbursement. Applicant chose to reimburse his former employer the 
$10,000 rather than pursue legal action to dispute it. He also paid this money because 
he did not want to receive a bad credit rating. (Tr. 96-99, 139-141) 
 
 
6 
 
 
Applicant’s former employer provided information about the investigation in GE 3, 
dated August 31, 2017. It disclosed that: Applicant “was interviewed and admitted he 
fabricated numerous invoices since his TDY began in 2013, to include the $2,000 
moving receipt.” Applicant “only admitted to fabricating these invoices after three hours 
of questioning and only after the investigator left the interview room to contact several of 
the business people.” Applicant “would not acknowledge if services were actually 
rendered by these businesses nor was he able to prove otherwise.” Applicant’s 
admission during the investigation is also substantiated by the JPAS Incident History 
record, which was reported on March 5, 2015. (GE 4) 
 
At the hearing, Applicant denied ever using the word “fabricate” during his 
investigation. He testified that he told the investigators that he “created” the receipts due 
to the nature of the businesses that he was using, and he just wanted to be reimbursed 
the money he paid to these businesses. Applicant did not sign or write his own 
statement. The term “fabricate” can be fairly interpreted to be consistent with Applicant’s 
statement at his hearing that he generated, manufactured, or fabricated the invoices he 
submitted on his computer. Applicant also denied that he failed to acknowledge whether 
the services were rendered during the investigation. (Tr. 84-90, 99; AE K, L) 
 
Applicant was questioned about the date of his employment resignation that was 
e-mailed to his former employer, on February 12, 2015. (AE M) This was also the same 
date the Disciplinary Review Board determined that the employee would be allowed to 
resign in-lieu-of termination. (GE 4) Applicant said this was a coincidence because he 
did not know the Disciplinary Review Board was going to offer him the option of 
resignation in-lieu-of termination. Applicant reiterated that he resigned from his former 
place of employment due to receiving a job offer from another DOD contractor, and not 
for any other reason. (Tr. 129,137) 
 
SOR allegation ¶ 1.b alleges in February 2015, without company permission, 
Applicant downloaded approximately 3,000 electronic files from his former employer’s 
computer system. Similarly, SOR allegation ¶ 1.c alleges in February 2015, without 
company permission, Applicant downloaded approximately 3076 proprietary information 
files from his former employer’s computer system. Applicant testified he had already 
submitted his employment resignation, and he received a message that a security 
manager was coming to his TDY location the next day to collect all of the company 
owned items. Applicant only had about 24 hours to save some of his personal files on 
the company computer. Due to the limited time constraint, Applicant decided to 
download all of the files from his former employer’s computer, to include some files that 
contained proprietary information. Applicant admitted that he had received training on 
the protection of classified and proprietary information. Applicant admitted copying the 
files in haste, which he now knows was a mistake.  (Tr. 100-105, 133) 
 
The security manager apparently knew beforehand that Applicant had copied the 
computer files. When the security manager arrived, he asked Applicant to also hand 
over the external hard drives. Applicant did not understand why he was asking him for 
the hard drives. The security manager told Applicant that he had downloaded files from 
 
7 
 
 
the company computer system. Applicant confirmed he had and he gave the external 
hard drives to the security manager. Applicant denied he copied his former employer’s 
proprietary information for any nefarious purposes, even though he was starting new 
employment with a competitor of his former employer. (Tr. 105-110)     
 
Applicant denied SOR ¶ 2.a under Guideline M (Misuse of Information 
Technology), which cross-referenced the information alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.c. 
This information was addressed above, and no further comment is required.  
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations 
for each guideline, the AG list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating 
conditions, which are 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 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 national security 
eligibility 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. 
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Directive ¶ E3.1.15 an “applicant is responsible 
for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate 
facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate 
burden of persuasion as to 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 that an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
 
8 
 
 
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national 
interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant 
concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access 
to classified or sensitive information).  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline E: Personal Conduct 
 
 AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern for personal conduct:  
 
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 or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to 
provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative 
or adjudicative processes. … 
 
 The following disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 16 are potentially 
applicable: 
 
AG ¶ 16(b) applies to these facts and circumstances: deliberately 
providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting 
information, concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, 
security official,…in making a recommendation relevant to a national 
security eligibility determination, … and;  
 
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 indicating that 
the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive 
information. This includes, but is not limited to:  
 
(3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and 
 
(4) evidence of significant misuse of Government or other 
employer’s time or resources. 
 
 The SOR alleges that Applicant falsified financial documents he submitted to his 
former employer for reimbursement. Applicant’s former employer initiated an 
 
9 
 
 
independent investigation which concluded that Applicant did, in fact, submit fraudulent 
financial records, to include invoices for pool services, moving services, furniture lease, 
and lodging expenses, for a combined total of $11,893.75. In addition, the investigation 
found suspected fraudulent expenses submitted for lawn services, rental car gas/oil 
change, and purchases for tools and small equipment. The suspected fraudulent 
expenses totaled $2,217.51. Applicant also downloaded thousands of electronic files, to 
include proprietary information files, from his former employer’s computer system after 
he submitted his employment resignation. The above disqualifying conditions apply. 
 
 The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns 
arising from personal conduct. The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 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 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; and  
 
(d) the individual acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to 
change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the 
stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, 
unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely 
to recur.  
 
 None of the mitigating conditions apply. Applicant’s exhibits H and I corroborate 
the allegation that he submitted false invoices. Applicant’s costs for furniture rental was 
approximately $343 per month, but he submitted an invoice for $430 per month to his 
former employer for reimbursement. I find Applicant’s submission of fraudulent invoices 
demonstrates conduct involving questionable judgment and an unwillingness to comply 
with rules and regulations. He claimed the invoices he created matched his actual 
expenses. He did not prove his invoices matched his actual expenses. His inability to be 
completely honest about the circumstances of his misconduct over a long period of time 
does cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness and good judgment. Applicant’s failure 
to acknowledge responsibility for his actions shows there is a strong possibility his 
fraudulent behavior may recur. Applicant is highly educated and an IT professional. 
There is no reasonable excuse for downloading thousands of files from his former 
employer’s computer system, to include his former employer’s proprietary information, 
without prior authorization. 
  
Guideline M, Use of Information Technology 
 
 The security concern relating to the use of information technology is set out in 
AG ¶ 39: 
 
10 
 
 
 
Failure to comply with rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations 
pertaining to information technology systems may raise security concerns 
about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, calling into question 
the willingness or ability to properly protect sensitive systems, networks, 
and information. Information Technology includes any computer-based, 
mobile, or wireless device used to create, store, access, process, 
manipulate, protect, or move information. This includes any component, 
whether integrated into a larger system or not, such as hardware, 
software, or firmware, used to enable or facilitate these operations. 
 
 The following disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 40 are potentially applicable: 
 
(d) downloading, storing, or transmitting classified, sensitive, proprietary, 
or other protected information on or to any unauthorized information 
technology system; and 
 
(e) unauthorized use of any information technology system.  
 
 The SOR alleges that Applicant downloaded thousands of electronic files, to 
include proprietary information files, from his former employer’s computer system, 
without authorization. AG ¶¶ 40(d) and (e) apply. 
 
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 41 are potentially applicable: 
 
(a) so much time has elapsed since the 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; 
 
(c) the conduct was unintentional or inadvertent and was followed by a 
prompt, good-faith effort to correct the situation and by notification to 
appropriate personnel; and 
 
(d) the misuse was due to improper or inadequate training or unclear 
instructions.  
  
 None of the mitigating conditions listed in AG ¶ 41 are applicable for the same 
reasons discussed in the personal conduct section, supra. 
 
      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 the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine 
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d):  
 
11 
 
 
 
(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 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. This SOR highlights serious offenses that 
provides insight to a person’s character and integrity. Applicant is not remorseful for his 
misconduct. His explanations are self-serving and insincere. I conclude that Applicant 
has not mitigated security concerns raised by his personal conduct, and use of 
information technology. Accordingly, Applicant has not carried his burden of showing 
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to continue his eligibility for access 
to classified information. 
 
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.c:         Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline M:         AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraph 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 security to grant Applicant’s eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                  
               
 
Pamela C. Benson 
Administrative Judge