CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00711.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00711.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00711.h1

deniedAug 31, 2017· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old female applicant with a military background was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's history included multiple arrests and convictions, some of which were felony charges related to criminal conduct.

Additionally, the applicant deliberately failed to disclose these felony charges on her security clearance application, raising concerns about her honesty and reliability. Her financial issues included several unresolved delinquent debts. While she admitted to multiple collection accounts, stating some were paid or scheduled for payment by September or October 2016, and denied another as paid and closed, these financial delinquencies indicated a lack of judgment and self-control.

The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate the disqualifying conditions related to her criminal conduct, personal conduct, and financial considerations. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of multiple arrests and convictions, including felony charges related to criminal conduct.
She deliberately failed to disclose her felony charges on her security clearance application, raising questions about her honesty and reliability.
The applicant's financial issues included unresolved delinquent debts, indicating a lack of judgment and self-control.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J1raisedCriminal Conduct
E2raisedPersonal Conduct
F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

J2rejectedCriminal ConductThe applicant's criminal behavior was not infrequent and did not occur under unique circumstances.
E2rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant did not make prompt efforts to correct her omissions.
F2rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's financial issues were ongoing and unresolved.

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 16, 2016
Answer filedSep 8, 2016Applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
Decision dateAug 31, 2017

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Felony Charges on a Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Pattern of Criminal Conduct Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Ongoing Financial Issues as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline F

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 against the applicant on the majority of personal conduct allegations under Guideline E. The applicant was found to have deliberately failed to disclose felony charges on her security clearance application, which raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness. The decision ultimately denied the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a–2.d	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (3 against, 1 for the applicant).	Mixed	NOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct		—	—	—

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate financial concerns under Guideline F, resulting in a denial of her security clearance. The applicant admitted to several collection accounts but did not provide sufficient evidence of resolution or payment, leading to a formal ruling against her on all financial allegations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant admitted the collection account in SOR ¶ 3.a and indicated that it is no longer on her credit report.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	She admitted the collection account in SOR ¶ 3.b and stated it was scheduled to be paid in full in September 2016.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
3.c	She admitted the collection account in SOR ¶ 3.c and stated it was currently being paid and would be paid in full by October 2016.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
3.d	She denied the collection account in SOR ¶ 3.d and stated the balance was paid, the account closed, and it was removed from her credit report.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
3.e	Applicant admitted the collection account in SOR ¶ 3.e and indicated it was scheduled to be paid in full in September 2016.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
3.f	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline J, criminal conduct, citing a history of arrests and convictions that raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness. The applicant's repeated criminal conduct, including a General Court-Martial conviction, led to the denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a–1.e	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00711 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance

For Government: Mary M. Foreman, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

08/31/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

RICCIARDELLO, Carol G., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline J, criminal conduct, Guideline E, personal conduct, and Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

On June 16, 2016, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guidelines J, criminal conduct, E, personal conduct, and F, financial considerations. 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 September 1, 2006. On June 8, 2017, new AG were implemented and are effective for decisions issued after that date.1 Applicant answered the SOR on September 8, 2016, and elected to have her case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s file of relevant material (FORM). Applicant received it on October 17, 2016. The Government’s evidence is identified as Items 1 through 9. Applicant was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of receipt of the FORM. Applicant did not respond to the FORM, object to the Items, or provide documents. Items 1 through 8 are admitted into evidence. The case was assigned to me on August 10, 2017.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.bthrough 1.e, 2.c, 2.d, 3.a, 3.b, 3.c, 3.e and 3.f.2 She denied the remaining SOR allegations. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings and exhibits submitted, I make the following findings of fact.

Applicant is 40 years old. She has never been married and has no children. She is attending community college. Applicant served in the military from 1999 to 2002 when she was discharged with a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions. The basis of her discharge was due to the “commission of a serious offense.”3 She has worked for her present employer, a federal contractor, since 2012 and also has held a part-time job since 2014.4

In November 2000, Applicant was arrested and charged with felony deposit account fraud (bad checks). During Applicant’s July 2015 background interview by a government investigator, she stated that she was not aware that she was charged with a felony. She stated that this charge was related to criminal charges associated with her court-martial. She admitted she went to the Sherriff’s office in the county where she was stationed and where the offense took place, and she was booked and released. She stated she was not aware that this was considered an arrest. She was found guilty by a magistrate court and convicted of misdemeanor deposit account fraud/bad checks $499 or less, and was sentenced to 12 months of probation, restitution, and a fine. The evidence confirms that this was a separate charge in a civilian court.5 In February 2002, Applicant was arrested and charged with forgery, fraud- impersonation, and fraud-credit card. She was arraigned at a General Court-Martial in March 2002. She was charged with four specifications of Attempt to Wrongfully Appropriate Lawful Currency from four different entities on four separate occasions; four specifications of Larceny and Wrongful Appropriation of Lawful Currency, of varying value, on four separate occasions from three different entities; and two specifications of Forgery with Intent to Defraud, on two separate occasions. Applicant pled guilty to the charge of “wrongful appropriation” vice “stealing.” Applicant was found guilty of all offenses and specifications and was sentenced by a military judge to confinement for 11 months and reduction to E-1.6 Applicant did not disclose on her security clearance application (SCA) that she had been charged with felonies at her General Court-Martial. She claimed her Defense Counsel told her the charge was a misdemeanor and not a felony. She stated she destroyed her documents regarding the court-martial a long time ago and she was unable to obtain a new one. She denied deliberately falsifying her security clearance application.

During her background interview, Applicant admitted that she was taking care of the apartment of X, a service member who was deployed. She logged on to his computer and completed applications for credit cards in his name from different banks. When the credit cards arrived in the mail, she opened the letters addressed to him, and attempted to use the credit cards to purchase various items without his permission. Applicant was asked by the government investigator what her motivation was for committing these offenses. She explained that she wanted money to purchase things she could not afford.7

While staying at X’s apartment, Applicant used his telephone and made long distance phone calls without his permission, totaling approximately $400 to $600. She also used Service member X’s checkbook without his permission and wrote checks to herself.8

Applicant was arrested in about March 2008 and charged with failure to identify Fugitive-Intent to Give False Information. In her SOR answer, she stated that the charge was incorrect. She did not have her driver’s license on her person at the time. She stated the police officer confirmed it was an incorrect charge. She stated the charge was later dismissed.9

Applicant was arrested in June 2008 and charged with theft property by check. During her background interview, she told the investigator that she did not disclose this arrest on her SCA because she did not think she had been arrested, and she thought since it was for less than $300 she did not need to list the incident.10 In her SOR answer, she stated that she received a letter from the county advising her there was a warrant for her arrest for a bad check, and she was required to pay a fee to have the warrant released. She stated she went to the county office and paid the fee. She stated:

I did fill out some paperwork and they took my picture. I didn’t know this would be considered an actual arrest and was not told by the officials at the time. I wasn’t put in handcuffs or actually taken to jail (which is what only thought arrest meant (sic)) so I just felt I was going to have the warrant lifted.11

She stated that the charge was dismissed in July 2008.12

Applicant was confronted by the investigator about an arrest in about August 2009 and a charge for theft of service by check where she received a deferred sentence and six-months-probation. The sentence date was October 2012. She could not provide the investigator any information about this arrest and stated she hired a lawyer to handle all of her legal issues, but believed this could be related to her 2008 arrest. In her SOR answer, she stated she could not recall the actual 2009 arrest, but remembered being arrested in 2012. Applicant’s FBI Record reflects she was arrested and fingerprinted in June 2008 and charged with theft of property by check. She was arrested again in August 2009, for theft of service by check, and again fingerprinted. She was arrested in 2012, and the police discovered an outstanding warrant. In her SCA, she stated the warrant was for outstanding speeding tickets. She stated she later learned it was because she had written bad checks years ago that she did not remember. She received a deferred sentence and six-months-probation. The charge was later dismissed.13

Applicant’s explanations for failing to disclose her June 2008 and August 2009 arrests may be plausible. However, I do not find Applicant’s explanation credible for failing to disclose on her SCA that she had been charged with felonies at her General Court-Martial. This was a significant criminal investigation and she was sentenced to 11 months confinement. She was represented by a Defense Counsel, and it is highly unlikely that she was not aware that the charges against her were felonies under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which authorizes a maximum punishment of dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for five years. I find Applicant deliberately failed to disclose she had been charged with felonies as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.b. I find she did not deliberately fail to disclose her June 2008 and August 2009 arrest and charges, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.a.14

The delinquent debts alleged in the SOR are reflected on a June 2015 credit report.15 Applicant admitted the collection account in SOR ¶ 3.a and indicated that it is no longer on her credit report. She did not provide evidence that she paid or resolved the debt. She admitted the collection account in SOR ¶ 3.band stated it was scheduled to be paid in full in September 2016. She admitted the collection account in SOR ¶ 3.cand stated it was currently being paid and would be paid in full by October 2016. She denied the collection account in SOR ¶ 3.dand stated the balance was paid, the account closed, and it was removed from her credit report. She admitted the collection account in SOR ¶ 3.e and indicated it was scheduled to be paid in full in September 2016. Applicant did not provide documented proof that any of these debts are resolved, paid, or being paid.16

During her background investigation, Applicant disclosed that she had participated in financial counseling, had a budget, and is paying her delinquent debts. She indicated she was working at a part-time job to help pay her delinquent debts.17

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines 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 states that 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 J: Criminal Conduct

The security concern for criminal conduct is set out in AG ¶ 30:

Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.

The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. I have considered all of the disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 31, and the following two are potentially applicable:

(a) a pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would be unlikely to affect a national security eligibility decision, but which in combination cast doubt on the individual’s judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness; and (b) evidence (including, but not limited to, a credible allegation, an admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted.

Applicant has a history of arrests and criminal conduct from 2000 to 2012, including charges of deposit account fraud/bad checks; and theft of property by check. She also has a General Court-Martial conviction for wrongful appropriation lawful currency from various institutions by credit cards and writing checks to herself on checks that belonged to another person without his permission. The above disqualifying conditions apply.

The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from criminal conduct. The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 32 are potentially applicable:

(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal 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;

(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement.

Applicant was trusted by a fellow service member to stay in his apartment while he was deployed. She used his computer to apply for credit cards in his name and then used them to purchase items. She wrote checks to herself using his account without his permission. She was convicted in civilian court of misdemeanor charges for deposit account fraud/bad checks and then at a General Court-Martial for wrongful appropriation and various other charges related to her actions. She was later arrested for theft by check. There is sufficient reliable evidence that Applicant committed these offenses. After her 2012 arrest, her prosecution was deferred and she completed six- months-probation, and the charge was dismissed. There is insufficient evidence to conclude Applicant’s conduct happened under unique circumstances. Based on Applicant’s repeated criminal conduct after her General Court-Martial conviction in 2002, I cannot find that future misconduct is unlikely to recur. Her actions cast doubt on her reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. I find AG ¶¶ 32(a) and 32(c) do not apply. I have considered that Applicant was paid restitution, complied with her probation, and is attending community college. I find AG ¶ 32(d) has some application, but those facts are insufficient to overcome the criminal conduct security concerns. 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 cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes.

AG ¶ 16 describes two conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. I find the following potentially applicable:

(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 qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; and

(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s conduct, that creates vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress by a foreign intelligence entity or other individual or group. Such conduct includes: (1) engaging in activities which, if known, could affect the person’s personal, professional, or community standing. . . .

Applicant was arrested several times and was convicted in civilian court of deposit account fraud, and at a General Court-Martial for numerous offenses involving wrongful appropriation of lawful currency and forgery with intent to defraud. Applicant deliberately failed to disclose on her SCA that she was charged with felonies while in the military that led to her General Court-Martial conviction. AG ¶¶ 16(a) and 16(e) apply.

The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from personal conduct. I have considered the following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17:

(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; and

(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it 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. There is no evidence that Applicant made a prompt, good-faith effort to correct her SCA and provided information about her felony charges before being confronted with the information by the investigator. AG ¶ 17(a) does not apply. Applicant’s criminal offenses are not minor and are of the type that raise serious questions about her honesty and whether she can be trusted. The same analysis under the criminal conduct guideline is applicable under the personal conduct guideline. Applicant deliberately failed to disclose that she had been charged with felonies while serving in the military. The government relies on those holding security clearances to disclose information requested. Applicant’s deliberate omission on her SCA is a serious offense and casts doubt on her reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. There is insufficient evidence to apply AG ¶ 17(c). .

Guideline F: Financial Considerations

The security concern relating to the guideline for financial considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:

Failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including espionage.

AG ¶ 19 provides conditions that could raise security concerns. The following three are potentially applicable:

(a) inability to satisfy debts;

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; and

Applicant has a history of unresolved delinquent debts that she has been unable or unwilling to satisfy. There is sufficient evidence to support the application of the above disqualifying conditions. The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:

(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

(c) the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;

(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and

(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue.

Applicant stated during her interview that she participated in financial counseling and had a budget. She did not submit evidence confirming that statement. Despite acknowledging the delinquent debts in her answer to the SOR and during her background investigation, she failed to provide supporting evidence that the debts are paid, settled, being resolved. There is no evidence that her financial problems are under control. There is insufficient evidence to determine that the debts were beyond her control or that she acted responsibly under the circumstances. She provided no evidence of good-faith efforts to repay creditors or document a legitimate dispute of a debt. None of the above mitigating conditions apply.

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 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. I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines J, E, and F in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under those guidelines, but some warrant additional comment.

Applicant is 40 years old. She has a history of criminal conduct involving theft by check and a General Court-Martial conviction that involved applying for credit cards in a person’s name without his permission and writing checks on his account without his permission. These serious offenses raise questions about her honesty and trustworthiness. Her deliberate failure to disclose that she was charged with felonies, along with her failure to resolve her delinquent debts raises security concerns. The record evidence leaves me with significant questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline J, criminal conduct, Guideline E, personal conduct, and Guideline F, financial considerations.

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 J: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a-1.e: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant Subparagraph 2.b-2.d: Against Applicant

Paragraph 3, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 3.a-3.f: 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.

_____________________________ Carol G. Ricciardello Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 I considered the previous AG, effective September 1, 2006, as well as the new AG, effective June 8, 2017. My decision would be the same if the case was considered under the previous AG. 2 SOR ¶ 3.fis misidentified as ¶ 3.d, but is sequentially after ¶ 3.e. It will be referred to as SOR ¶ 3.f. 3 Item 7. 4 Item 3. 5 Item 5. SOR ¶ 1.a alleges a city and state where the offense allegedly took place. Applicant stated in her answer that she had never been arrested in this city, and was on active duty in the military at the time in a different state. Item 5 shows that the name of the county where the arrest and conviction took place is the same name as the city alleged in the SOR and is the same place where Applicant was stationed at the time alleged. Department Counsel addressed this discrepancy in the FORM that was sent to Applicant. There was no reply by Applicant to the FORM and no objection to any of the evidence. Item 5 confirms Applicant’s arrest and conviction. 6 Items 4, 5, 6. 7 Item 4. 8 Item 4. 9 Item 2. 10 Item 4. 11 Item 2. 12 Item 2. 13 Items 2, 3, 4, 5. 14 Item 8. This punishment is the maximum allowable for one specification of forgery. Applicant pled guilty to additional specifications, which would have increased the maximum sentence permitted. 15 Items 2, 9. 16 Item 2. 17 Item 4.