CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03360 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 20-03360

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date6/5/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Nichole L. Noel
Government Counsel: Carroll J. Connelley
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 29-year-old individual employed by a federal contracting company since March 2020, seeking a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DOD). The DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under the personal conduct, criminal conduct, and financial considerations guidelines, primarily due to the applicant's involvement in an employee-theft scheme and unresolved delinquent accounts.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to participating in a theft scheme while employed at a large electronics retailer, which involved falsifying return records to generate fraudulent gift cards. He was terminated and later pleaded guilty to felony theft, resulting in a sentence that included restitution payments. The applicant claimed to have paid over $17,000 in restitution and described his financial situation as improved, although he still had delinquent accounts, including student loans. He did not provide sufficient documentation to corroborate his claims of financial stability or the resolution of his debts.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his past criminal conduct and financial issues. The judge emphasized that the applicant's actions demonstrated a lack of judgment and responsibility, which posed a risk to national security. The decision ultimately denied the applicant's request for a security clearance, reflecting the importance of trustworthiness and reliability in individuals granted access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03360

deniedJun 5, 2024· Hon. Nichole L. Noel· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old federal contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a felony theft conviction and unresolved financial issues.

The Statement of Reasons cited the applicant's participation in an employee-theft scheme, a felony theft conviction, and several financial delinquencies. These included delinquent accounts totaling $5,472, failure to pay student loans, and the accumulation of additional delinquent debt.

The judge determined that the applicant's felony theft conviction raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability. Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns related to both his criminal conduct and financial issues. Inconsistent statements regarding his involvement in the theft scheme also indicated a lack of accountability, ultimately leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's felony theft conviction raised doubts about his judgment and reliability.
The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns related to his criminal conduct and financial issues.
Inconsistent statements regarding his involvement in the theft scheme indicated a lack of accountability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)appliedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 19(b)appliedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 19(d)appliedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 2, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 1, 2023Applicant left the record open until August 31, 2023.
Decision dateJun 5, 2024

Cite For

Denial Based on Felony Theft Conviction Under Guideline J
Failure to Mitigate Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Inconsistent Statements on Credibility Under Guideline E

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the allegation of participation in an employee-theft scheme. The applicant's financial issues and unresolved delinquent accounts were also considered, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Participation in an employee-theft scheme.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment GeneralFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had unresolved delinquent accounts totaling $5,472 and failed to pay student loans, which raised significant financial concerns under Guideline F. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant on all financial allegations, concluding that the applicant did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns related to his financial issues.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Delinquent accounts totaling $5,472. $5,472	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.b	Failure to pay student loans.	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.c	Accumulation of additional delinquent debt.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge ruled against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegation of felony theft. The applicant's conviction for theft was deemed disqualifying, and the judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns associated with this conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Felony theft conviction.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Denied	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.