ISCR Case 09-07689.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-07689.h1

deniedFeb 28, 2011· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had unresolved financial delinquencies totaling approximately $21,484 and a criminal conviction for attempted forgery.

The financial issues stemmed from multiple delinquencies that remained unaddressed despite the applicant being employed since April 2009. The applicant did not provide evidence of financial counseling or a personal financial statement to demonstrate responsible financial management.

Regarding criminal conduct, in September 2007, the applicant wrote checks totaling $500-$600 from his father's account without permission. This led to felony theft charges, which were later reduced to a misdemeanor charge of attempted forgery after his father intervened. The applicant was convicted, sentenced to community service, probation, and a fine, all of which he satisfied. However, the judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient efforts to mitigate the financial issues or establish a pattern of responsible behavior following his bankruptcy discharge, leading to the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple financial delinquencies totaling approximately $21,484, which remained unresolved despite being employed since April 2009.
The applicant's criminal conduct involved writing checks on his father's account without permission, leading to a felony theft charge that was reduced to a misdemeanor after his father intervened.
The applicant did not provide evidence of financial counseling or a personal financial statement to demonstrate responsible financial management.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations
J.1raisedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

F.2rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's financial problems were ongoing and not adequately addressed after securing employment.
J.2rejectedCriminal ConductThe applicant's criminal behavior raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Key Rule Quoted

“The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, 'no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.'”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 29, 2010
Answer filedAug 16, 2010Applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
Hearing held—Written record decision.
Decision dateFeb 28, 2011

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Delinquencies Under Guideline F
Criminal Conduct Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation or Responsible Financial Management Leading to Clearance Denial.

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
1.a–1.p	15 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a–1.p

15 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	In September 2007, at the age of 30, Applicant wrote checks totaling $500 - $600 on his father’s checking account, without the knowledge or permission of his father. They subsequently had a dispute and Applicant moved out of the house. Applicant’s father filed felony theft charges against Applicant and warrants were issued for Applicant’s arrest. When Applicant appeared in court, his father told the judge he did not wish to continue the charge against his son. Consequently, the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor charge of attempted forgery. Applicant was convicted of the reduced charge and sentenced to 50 hours of community service, two years probation, and a fine and court costs. Applicant satisfied his court-ordered obligations. He acknowledged his actions were 'a very stupid mistake.'	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

In September 2007, at the age of 30, Applicant wrote checks totaling $500 - $600 on his father’s checking account, without the knowledge or permission of his father. They subsequently had a dispute and Applicant moved out of the house. Applicant’s father filed felony theft charges against Applicant and warrants were issued for Applicant’s arrest. When Applicant appeared in court, his father told the judge he did not wish to continue the charge against his son. Consequently, the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor charge of attempted forgery. Applicant was convicted of the reduced charge and sentenced to 50 hours of community service, two years probation, and a fine and court costs. Applicant satisfied his court-ordered obligations. He acknowledged his actions were 'a very stupid mistake.'

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES