1 
       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
   DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 15-05443 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Michelle Tilford, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Patrick Kernan, Esq. 
04/26/2019
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
BENSON, Pamela C., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline E (Personal 
Conduct). National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied.  
 Statement of the Case 
On August 26, 2014, and August 3, 2017, Applicant submitted security clearance 
applications (SCA). On March 6, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated 
Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), 
detailing security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). 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 April 23, 2018, and he provided four documents 
with his response. He admitted SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.b - 1.f, and denied ¶ 1.a.   
Applicant obtained counsel and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. 
Department Counsel provided discovery and an amendment to the SOR to Applicant’s 
 
2 
 
 
Counsel by letter dated November 5, 2018. The amendment included SOR ¶¶ 1.g - 1.n; 
all falsification allegations cited under Guideline E. On November 30, 2018, Applicant 
denied SOR ¶¶ 1.g - 1.n. On December 31, 2018, the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing, setting the hearing for January 17, 2019. 
On January 4, 2019, the case was assigned to me. 
 
 During the hearing, Department Counsel offered Government Exhibit (GE) 1-14, 
but only GE 1-10 were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant’s Counsel 
objected to GE 11-14, as noted under Procedural Matters addressed below. In addition, 
Counsel offered Applicant Exhibit (AE) B, C, E, F, G, and L,1 which I admitted into 
evidence without objection. (Tr. 26-32) Applicant called his wife to testify on his behalf. I 
held the record open until February 17, 2019, in the event either party wanted to submit 
additional documentation. On January 22, 2019, Applicant’s counsel provided two 
additional documents. I admitted AE M and N into evidence without objection. DOHA 
received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on January 28, 2019, and the record was closed on 
February 17, 2019. 
 
     Procedural Matters 
 
 Applicant’s Counsel objected to GE 11-14, which are reports of Applicant’s 
background interviews during various security clearance investigations. Applicant’s 
Counsel believed the reports of subject interview were incomplete reports, and claimed 
the falsification allegations were taken out of context. Department Counsel stated that 
the subject interview reports were complete summary reports, but Applicant’s Counsel’s 
claim of “statements taken out of context” was due to him not receiving Applicant’s 
entire report of investigation. (ROI) She correctly noted that DOHA is not authorized to 
provide the entire ROI since it is the property of Office of Personnel Management 
(OPM). I reviewed GE 11-14, and I determined that the summary of Applicant’s 
interview was complete in all four documents. The summary covered the beginning, 
middle, and the end of Applicant’s interview, without any missing pages. Of course, the 
interviews are summaries and are not verbatim. They do not provide complete 
information from the interviews. I also advised Applicant’s Counsel to clearly state 
during Applicant’s testimony if there were any discrepancies in the summary of the 
background interviews, which I would take into consideration. (Tr. 20-25) 
 
 The subject interview summary is an investigative report produced by OPM, a 
Federal government agency. OPM is required to complete subject interviews in the 
DOD security clearance investigations. Applicant’s admissions are of a party opponent 
and according to Federal Rule of Evidence (Fed. R. Evid.) 801(d)(2), they are not 
hearsay. In the alternative, the summary is admissible as a record of a regularly 
recurring activity–in this case a security clearance investigation under Fed. R. Evid. 
803(6). ISCR Case No. 16-02536 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 11, 2019). [Except OPM 
investigative records. See n. 3.] Thus, I overruled Counsel’s objection to the four subject 
                                                          
1 Some tabs from Applicant’s notebook of exhibits were removed prior to the hearing. The notebook 
contained a table of contents, but not all of the tabs listed in the table of contents were included in the 
notebook that was provided to me at the hearing. 
 
3 
 
 
interview summaries of Applicant. I admitted GE 11-14 into 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 38 years old. He earned a bachelor’s degree in 2005, and 
a master’s degree in 2007. Applicant was married in 2003 and divorced in 2009. He 
remarried in 2009. He has a daughter, age 12, and an adult stepdaughter, age 21. 
Applicant enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in March 2003. He was on active duty until 
December 2005, when he received an honorable discharge due to hardship. He joined 
the Navy Reserve in February 2010, and in October 2012, he resigned his commission 
due to a pending Federal investigation. While serving as a government contracting 
officer in Iraq, Applicant had been accused of setting up a sham company, bribery, and 
receiving monetary kickbacks for awarding contacts to companies involved in the 
scheme. He could not be promoted in the Navy Reserves while a Federal investigation 
was on-going, and he received an honorable discharge. (Tr. 12-14, 33, 38, 42, 46-48, 
77-78, 119, 121-122; GE 1, GE 3-6; AE M, AE N) 
 
Since 2012, Applicant is the chief executive officer and 51% service disabled 
veteran owner of a federal consulting company that has 150 employees and does $10 
million in business annually. He manages many different operations in the company. 
Applicant does not currently possess a DOD security clearance, but he previously held 
a DOD security clearance and a DOD facility clearance until 2015. Applicant is 
requesting that he be granted a personal DOD security clearance, and as Key 
Management Personnel, his company could then be granted a DOD facility clearance. 
(Tr. 12-14, 33, 38, 46-49, 77-78; GE 1) 
 
SOR allegation ¶ 1.a alleges that in 2009, while Applicant was working as a U.S. 
Government Contracting Officer in Iraq, he was investigated for bribery and conspiracy 
to commit bribery. In his response to the SOR, Applicant denied this allegation, and also 
noted that this adverse information occurred a decade ago. On May 18, 2015, Applicant 
received notice via certified mail from the U.S. Army Procurement Fraud Division that 
after completion of a Federal investigation, Applicant and his company were being 
considered for debarment from future contracting with any agency in the Executive 
branch of the U.S. Government. (AE M) He denied receiving any notice from the 
Government. He found out about the proposed debarment from his business partner, 
who had checked the website listing debarred federal contractors and individuals. (Tr. 
97-98) Applicant obtained counsel, disputed the findings of the investigation, and 
argued that debarment was not appropriate in this matter. (AE N) On February 25, 
2016, the U.S. Army Procurement Fraud Division agreed to establish an administrative 
compliance agreement, and required Applicant to take a business ethics course. (SOR 
response attachment 2)  A Memorandum from the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), dated August 6, 2012, stated that although there was not 
enough corroboration obtained during the investigation to charge Applicant with bribery, 
and attempted bribery, the case agents from FBI, Defense Criminal Investigative 
 
4 
 
 
Services, Army Criminal Investigation Command, and Special Inspector General for Iraq 
Reconstruction believe that Applicant was involved in criminal activity. (Tr. 95-102; GE 
3-7; AE C, AE M, AE N)  
 
SOR allegation ¶ 1.b alleges that in 2011, while Applicant was employed as an 
employee of the United States Peace Corps, he accessed pornographic websites on his 
assigned government computer. Applicant admitted this allegation in his response to the 
SOR. He stated that he had just filed a complaint with the Office of Inspector General 
(OIG) against his supervisor for selling illegal drugs to Peace Corps employees, 
nepotism, and possible contract fraud. She also discriminated against military members. 
Applicant testified that his supervisor asked him directly if he wanted to be part of a 
contract bribery scam. After hearing her offer, Applicant admitted to being 
unprofessional, and he said some curse words to his supervisor. He claimed his 
supervisor then placed him on a performance improvement plan. (PIP) About three 
weeks after he filed an OIG complaint against his supervisor, a computer check 
revealed that Applicant had been visiting pornography websites on his work computer. 
There were also allegations of him reporting to work late and leaving work early. 
Applicant was called into an office with an OIG representative, and he signed the 
paperwork that was provided to him. He said the paper included an admission of guilt, 
which he agreed to sign since he was guilty of accessing pornographic websites on his 
work computer. Applicant noted that he signed the paperwork without the benefit of 
having legal representation. (Tr. 60-70)  
 
SOR ¶ 1.g alleges Applicant intentionally failed to disclose his employment with 
the U.S. Peace Corps when he completed his 2014 SCA. Applicant denied this 
allegation, and believes the omission was either a computer glitch, the result of a “gag 
order” he thought was in effect, or just oversite. SOR ¶ 1.m alleges that during his 
background interview in September 2014, Applicant volunteered information about his 
employment with the U.S. Peace Corps. When initially asked by the investigator 
whether he had any difficulties with this employment, Applicant denied any difficulties, 
and said no one from the Peace Corps would question his conduct or behavior at this 
employment. He did not violate any oral, written or otherwise recorded agreements 
made with this employer. He admitted to the investigator that he clicked on links 
provided by his father which, unbeknownst to him, turned out to be pornographic 
websites. At the hearing, Applicant accepted full responsibility for intentionally visiting 
pornographic websites on his government computer. He did not disclose on his SCA 
that he was terminated for accessing pornography on his government computer. (Tr. 70-
73, 102-103, 107-108, 124-127; 136-137, 139; GE 2, GE 11; AE L) 
 
SOR ¶ 1.n alleges that Applicant intentionally lied to the investigator during his 
background interview in September 2014 when he told the investigator that he had been 
employed by the Peace Corps, but he was under a gag order and could no longer 
discuss his employment with the Peace Corps during his interview. Applicant stated that 
he believed the gag order was valid, and he was required to keep his “mouth shut.” (Tr. 
70-73, 102-103,109,136; GE 2, GE 11; AE L)  
 
 
5 
 
 
SOR ¶ 1.j alleges that Applicant falsified his 2017 SCA when he answered “no” 
to the question if within the last seven years, had he ever received a written warning, 
been officially reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined for misconduct in the workplace. 
Applicant denied this allegation. He believed he was under a “gag order” and could not 
disclose any information about his misconduct while employed by the U.S. Peace 
Corps. He claimed paragraph 3, of an unsigned settlement agreement, (AE L) was the 
driving force in this matter. Applicant said he also knew this adverse information was 
readily available during his investigation, so he was not attempting to hide this 
information. Later during the hearing, Applicant stated that he did not know the exact 
time period, and going back 7 years, he should have listed his misconduct for viewing 
pornography while employed by the Peace Corps, but he mistakenly missed the seven-
year cut-off by “days.” Applicant did not list his termination from the Peace Corps for 
viewing pornography on the SCA. He stated he was not trying to hide the information. 
After reading Paragraph 3 of AE L, I find that it does not contain any language which 
would prevent Applicant from discussing his Peace Corps employment misconduct 
during the course of his background investigation. (Tr. 60-73, 104, 129, 140-14; GE 1, 
GE 2; AE L, paragraph 3)   
 
SOR ¶ 1.k alleges Applicant falsified material facts during a December 2011 
subject interview when he told the investigator that he was under a gag order as a result 
of a lawsuit he filed against the Peace Corps. He had filed a complaint against the 
Peace Corps and the matter was settled out of court. He could not provide additional 
information, due to a gag order issued by the presiding judge. (GE 14) In addition, 
Applicant deliberately withheld the circumstances that led to him being placed on paid 
administrative leave, due to viewing pornographic websites on his government 
computer. Applicant testified that he has always admitted his misconduct of viewing 
pornography whenever questioned, and also admitted he lost his employment position 
due to viewing pornography. Later in the hearing, Applicant said he was not forthcoming 
with his pornography misconduct due to the gag order, and he recommended the 
investigator obtain his employment history directly from the Peace Corps. (Tr. 73-75, 
105, 113) 
 
SOR allegation ¶ 1.l alleges that Applicant gave conflicting accounts during his 
background interviews concerning the circumstances of viewing pornography on his 
work computer. During his March 2012 interview, Applicant told the investigator that he 
had looked at pornographic sites on his Government computer when he was on his 
personal e-mail account. The websites were sent to him by his military friends. He did 
not consider viewing pornographic websites from his personal e-mail a problem or in 
violation of any policy. During his September 2014 background interview, Applicant said 
he clicked on links provided by his father, which he did not know contained 
pornographic as well as shopping websites. (Tr. 106-107; GE 11, GE 13) 
 
SOR allegation ¶ 1.c alleges that Applicant was counseled while employed with 
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) for misuse of his Government credit card. 
In 2012, his employment with GSA was terminated. Applicant admitted this allegation in 
response to the SOR. He denied that the misuse of his Government credit card was 
 
6 
 
 
intentional. His wife inadvertently pulled this credit card out of a stack of personal credit 
cards Applicant kept at home. When GSA notified him of the fraudulent activity, he 
immediately paid the balance billed to his Government credit card. He claimed to have 
self-reported the misuse of his Government credit card to his supervisor. His supervisor 
told Applicant that this incident was a minor issue. Applicant was later called into an 
office with his supervisor and the chief of staff, approximately six weeks before the 
expiration of his employment probationary period. They asked him to commit contract 
fraud, which he immediately refused. The chief of staff slipped a piece of paper to him, 
and he discovered that he was being placed on a PIP for insubordination, and misuse of 
a Government credit card. Applicant stated he turned over the PIP document and wrote 
that he immediately resigned his position with GSA. Before he walked out of the room, 
he was told that he could not resign from a government job. It was his understanding 
that he resigned from GSA. Upon further question at the hearing, Applicant was asked 
why he had denied being fired from GSA, as he indicated that he thought he was simply 
let go during his probationary period. Applicant said this statement was correct, as he 
was unsure of his status when he left employment with GSA. (Tr. 76-77, 83-93, 146; AE 
E) 
 
SOR allegation ¶ 1.h alleges that Applicant falsified his 2014 SCA when he listed 
that he left employment with GSA to start his own business. SOR ¶ 1.i alleges Applicant 
falsified information on the same SCA when he denied he was fired, quit after being told 
he would be fired, or left employment by mutual agreement for misconduct or 
unsatisfactory performance. (GE 2) Applicant denied these allegations. He did start his 
company after leaving GSA, and he had resigned from his position. (Tr. 93-95, 103-104, 
127-128) 
 
During the hearing, his attorney asked Applicant:  
 
Counsel: “And it was your understanding that you resigned and they 
(GSA) said no, you can’t resign.” 
 
Applicant: “That is correct.” 
 
Counsel: “And they fired you.” 
 
Applicant: “That is correct.” 
 
Counsel: “But you weren’t aware of that?” 
 
Applicant: “No I wasn’t. Once again I didn’t hire legal counsel. Once 
again [I] walked out of the building the same day.” (Tr. 93) 
 
…and later during the hearing:  
 
Counsel: “And it says when in fact you were terminated from that 
(GSA) position. Did you understand you were terminated?” 
 
7 
 
 
 
Applicant: “No, not at that time I did not know I was terminated.” (Tr. 
103) 
 
On the 2017 SCA completed by Applicant, he listed his reason for leaving 
GSA as follows: 
 
I was terminated for insubordination. I was asked by my entire team 
of executives to illegally award several contracts, valued in the $100s 
of millions of dollars, to companies of their choosing. I told them that 
it was illegal, and that I respectfully refused. When I did that, I was 
still under my ‘1 year probationary’ period, and was terminated from 
my employment.” (GE 1 pg. 14) [ 
 
On page 15 of his 2017 SCA, Applicant said, “…When I refused, respectfully, I was 
issued termination papers, and left the same day. If I had to do it again, I would do 
it EXACTLY the same way. No questions.” 
 
During the hearing Applicant was questioned about his contradictory statements. 
He stated that he learned much later that he had been terminated by GSA in 2012. 
When he filled out the SCA in 2014, he reflected that termination information he just 
only recently discovered. When asked how he found out about his termination from 
GSA, he said, “I don’t remember. There’s somehow I did find out. I don’t remember. I 
don’t recall.” (Tr. 147-149) 
 
SOR allegation ¶ 1.d alleges that Applicant was arrested in May 2012 for assault 
of a family member (wife). Applicant testified that during this time he was having 
difficulty with his wife. He claimed she was addicted to illegal drugs. He admitted during 
the hearing to being arrested in state A for having an open container in public, but he 
denied ever being arrested in May 2012 or convicted of domestic assault. (Tr. 49-52) 
During Applicant’s background interview in January 2013, he told the investigator that 
his neighbors called the police whenever he and his wife got into a loud argument. The 
police were called three times to their apartment, and his wife was arrested on all three 
occasions. Applicant stated he was never arrested or charged with domestic 
disturbance on any of those occasions. (GE 12) State A criminal record and an FBI 
identification record both show that Applicant was arrested in May 2012 for assault of a 
family member. Two months later, in July 2012, the charge was nolle prossed. (GE 9-
10) Applicant did not disclose his May 2012 arrest for assault of a family member on his 
2014 or 2017 SCA. (GE 1-2) It is important to note that during his interview in 
September 2014, Applicant provided a different account of the incident. He stated the 
police were called to their apartment in May 2012 due a loud argument, and the policy 
of State A police is that one of the individuals involved in the domestic disturbance must 
be arrested if the police are called to investigate. In May 2012, Applicant volunteered 
(emphasis added) to go with the police because his wife already had several criminal 
convictions. He spent about eight hours in jail, he met with a magistrate, paid a fine, and 
 
8 
 
 
was then released. Applicant did not list the arrest on the SCA as he was unaware that 
he had been charged with any criminal offense. (GE 11)  
 
SOR allegation ¶ 1.e alleges that Applicant was arrested in December 2015 for 
assault of a family member (wife). As indicated previously, Applicant claimed the 
neighbors called the police on multiple occasions whenever he and his wife got into a 
loud argument. On this particular night, he and his wife were having a loud verbal 
argument. He left the residence and stayed overnight in a hotel. The next morning, 
Applicant was arrested by the police for assault after leaving his hotel room. Since it 
was a holiday weekend, he was held in jail for three days before he could see a judge. 
(Tr. 52-54; GE 9; AE G) 
 
While sitting in jail, Applicant realized he had a company payroll cycle that 
needed attention, but he did not have his business partner’s telephone number 
memorized. The only phone number he had memorized was his wife’s phone number. 
Applicant claimed he did not realize that a protective order had been issued, so he 
called his wife from jail. They had a cordial conversation, and he asked her to call his 
business partner to handle the company payroll. Applicant was then rearrested for 
violation of a protection order. (SOR ¶ 1.f) The protective order remained valid for a 
period of five months. Applicant had to move into his own apartment. Applicant 
accepted a deferred sentence agreement which required him to successfully complete 
24 weeks of an anger management program, and successfully complete two years of 
probation without further violations. The violation of a protective order was nolle prossed 
in March 2016. Applicant successfully completed the anger management program in 
September 2016, and the assault of a family member charge was dismissed in March 
2018. (Tr. 54-58; GE 9; AE G) 
 
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 
 
9 
 
 
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 
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. … 
 
 AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and be 
disqualifying. The following are potentially applicable under the established facts 
in this case: 
 
(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 
 
10 
 
 
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security 
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; 
 
(b) 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  
 
(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. 
 
 Applicant deliberately falsified SCAs and background interviews concerning his 
employment and termination history with the Peace Corps and GSA. He intentionally 
failed to fully disclose the circumstances of his workplace misconduct, and he provided 
contradictory and inconsistent statements throughout multiple security clearance 
investigations. While serving as a government contracting officer in Iraq, Applicant was 
accused of setting up a sham company, bribery, and receiving monetary kickbacks for 
awarding contacts to companies involved in the scheme. He was arrested on more than 
one occasion for assault on a family member, and he was arrested for violation of a 
protection order. As recently as 2018, the court dismissed an assault charge against 
Applicant after his completion of anger management classes and two years of 
probation. Applicant did not disclose his full criminal history on the SCAs, and he 
provided contradictory statements about his May 2012 assault arrest during two 
background interviews. Applicant admitted to intentionally accessing pornography on a 
government computer, but his previous accounts of how he accessed these websites, 
and whether he did so intentionally, were also inconsistent. 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;  
 
 
11 
 
 
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was 
caused or significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a 
person with professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the 
individual specifically concerning security processes. Upon being made 
aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the 
individual cooperated fully and truthfully; 
 
(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. I did not find Applicant’s testimony 
credible. He has not made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct omissions or 
falsifications provided during the course of several security clearance investigations. His 
claim that either a judge’s ruling, or a company settlement agreement, preventing him 
from disclosing his workplace misconduct pursuant to a “gag order” is self-serving and 
unconvincing. He demonstrates a pattern of dishonesty, which casts doubt on his 
reliability, trustworthiness, and overall good judgment. Many of his statements and 
explanations were uncorroborated. After reviewing his history of misconduct and deceit, 
I find that it is probable Applicant’s inappropriate behavior is likely to recur. 
 
      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):  
 
(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 
 
12 
 
 
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 Applicant’s character and integrity. Applicant is not remorseful for his 
misconduct or deceit. His explanations are self-serving and insincere. I conclude that 
Applicant has not mitigated security concerns raised by his personal conduct. 
Accordingly, Applicant has not carried his burden of showing that it is clearly consistent 
with the national interest to grant 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.n:         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