CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01779 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-01779

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/4/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Darlene Lokey Anderson
Government Counsel: Jeffrey T. Kent
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 29-year-old Scheduler and Risk Analyst employed by a defense contractor, seeking a security clearance. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons citing concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The core allegations included her involvement in retail theft and receiving stolen property, specifically related to an incident on July 31, 2022, where she was charged with altering price labels to obtain merchandise worth approximately $872 at Walmart.
The applicant admitted to being charged with the offenses but denied intentionally changing the bar codes to commit theft. She claimed a misunderstanding regarding the self-checkout process, suggesting a malfunction. However, evidence indicated that she deliberately altered price stickers on multiple items, demonstrating a lack of candor during her interviews and interrogatories. The administrative judge noted that the applicant's failure to fully disclose her actions and her lack of remorse raised significant concerns about her judgment and reliability.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that her recent criminal conduct and dishonesty during the security clearance process undermined her trustworthiness. The judge found that the disqualifying conditions under both guidelines were established and not mitigated, emphasizing the importance of honesty and reliability in maintaining national security.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · 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. 23-01779

deniedMar 4, 2024· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to recent retail theft and a lack of candor. The applicant was charged with Retail Theft-Alter Label/Price Marking and Receiving Stolen Property.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's engagement in retail theft and receiving stolen property, which demonstrated poor judgment and untrustworthiness. Furthermore, the applicant was not truthful about her criminal conduct, specifically failing to admit to altering price labels during the theft, despite admitting to the charges.

The judge found the applicant's behavior indicative of poor judgment and untrustworthiness, concluding that her recent criminal conduct and lack of candor raised serious concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness, making her ineligible for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant engaged in retail theft and receiving stolen property, demonstrating poor judgment and untrustworthiness.
The applicant was not candid about her criminal conduct, failing to admit to altering price labels during the theft.
The applicant's recent criminal conduct raised serious concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(a)raisedPattern of Minor Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(c)raisedCurrently on Probation
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission or Concealment
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information

Key Rule Quoted

“Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.”
— AG ¶ 30

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 31, 2023
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision without a hearing.
Hearing held—Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateMar 4, 2024

Cite For

Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Poor Judgment and Untrustworthiness as Disqualifying Factors for Security Clearance

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant was not truthful about her criminal conduct and failed to disclose the full extent of her criminal conduct. The applicant's recent criminal behavior, including retail theft and receiving stolen property, demonstrated poor judgment and a disregard for the law, leading to a decision against her security clearance eligibility.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was not truthful about her criminal conduct and failed to disclose the full extent of her criminal conduct.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—

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 J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant regarding her criminal conduct involving retail theft and receiving stolen property. The applicant was charged with these offenses and admitted to the charges, but denied knowingly altering price labels. The judge concluded that the applicant's actions demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of remorse, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was charged with Retail Theft-Alter Label/Price Marking and Receiving Stolen Property.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—

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.