ISCR Case 18-01587

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01587

grantedFeb 21, 2019· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 47-year-old custodian whose security clearance eligibility was granted despite a history of criminal conduct and financial issues, evaluated under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct) and F (Financial Considerations).

The Statement of Reasons detailed several concerns. Under Guideline J, the applicant had three prior arrests and convictions: in April 2003 for three counts of negotiating worthless checks, resulting in imprisonment and a fine; in September 2006 for felony possession of a forged check for $418, leading to a five-year imprisonment, fine, and restitution; and in January 2010 for felony possession of a forged instrument, also resulting in a five-year imprisonment, fine, and restitution. Under Guideline F, the applicant had a child support arrearage of $155,800, a $431 telecommunications bill in collection, a credit card account with a $75 past due amount and a $409 total balance, and a $250 charged-off credit union account.

Despite these disqualifying conditions, the administrative judge applied mitigating conditions and found evidence of rehabilitation and responsibility. The applicant demonstrated successful rehabilitation by not engaging in criminal conduct for over nine years and has been continuously employed since his release from prison in 2012. He also made regular payments towards his child support arrears. Based on these factors, the applicant’s security clearance eligibility was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated successful rehabilitation by not engaging in criminal conduct for over nine years.
He has been continuously employed since his release from prison in 2012, reflecting stability and responsibility.
The applicant has made regular payments towards his child support arrears, showing a commitment to addressing his financial obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(a)raisedPattern of Minor Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(d)raisedDeceptive or Illegal Financial Practices

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance adjudication is an evaluation of an individual’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. It is not a debt-collection procedure, nor is it intended to punish previous criminal behavior.”
— ISCR Case No. 09-02160 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 26, 2018
Answer filedAug 15, 2018
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record without a hearing.
Decision dateFeb 21, 2019

Cite For

Successful Rehabilitation After a History of Criminal Conduct
Consideration of Financial Obligations in Security Clearance Decisions
The Whole-person Concept in Evaluating Security Clearance Eligibility

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant has a child-support arrearage of $155,800. $155,800	For Applicant	Child Support Debt	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Payment Plan with Creditor
2.b	Applicant has a telecommunications bill placed for collection of $431. $431	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Payment Plan with Creditor
2.c	Applicant has a credit-card account past due for $75, with a total balance of $409. $75	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Payment Plan with Creditor
2.d	Applicant has a credit-union charged off for $250. $250	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Payment Plan with Creditor
2.e	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant has a child-support arrearage of $155,800.

$155,800

For Applicant

Child Support Debt

Admitted

—

Claimed

Payment Plan with Creditor

2.b

Applicant has a telecommunications bill placed for collection of $431.

$431

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

Claimed

Payment Plan with Creditor

2.c

Applicant has a credit-card account past due for $75, with a total balance of $409.

$75

For Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

—

Claimed

Payment Plan with Creditor

2.d

Applicant has a credit-union charged off for $250.

$250

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

Claimed

Payment Plan with Creditor

2.e

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested in April 2003 for three counts of negotiating worthless checks. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 20 days and a fine.	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—
1.b	Applicant was arrested in September 2006 for felony possession of a forged check for $418. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for five years, fined, and required to pay restitution.	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—
1.c	Applicant was charged with felony possession of a forged instrument in January 2010. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for five years, fined, and required to pay restitution.	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was arrested in April 2003 for three counts of negotiating worthless checks. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 20 days and a fine.

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

1.b

Applicant was arrested in September 2006 for felony possession of a forged check for $418. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for five years, fined, and required to pay restitution.

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

1.c

Applicant was charged with felony possession of a forged instrument in January 2010. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for five years, fined, and required to pay restitution.

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION