ISCR Case 04-06643.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-06643.h1

deniedNov 28, 2005· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 25-year-old Budget Analyst was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a 1999 felony conviction for Burglary and ongoing financial irresponsibility.

The applicant's criminal history included stealing jewelry and forging a check from a co-worker in 1998, leading to charges of Grand Theft, thirteen counts of Burglary, and Forgery. She pled guilty to one count of Burglary, receiving three years probation, a $200 fine, 45 days of service, $2,920 in restitution, and mandatory anti-theft counseling. Additionally, in 2003, Child Protective Services investigated two incidents of physical discipline involving her daughter, resulting in the temporary removal of the child from her home.

Regarding financial concerns, the applicant was found to be overextended, indebted to multiple creditors, and at risk of engaging in illegal acts for funds. She failed to provide documentation for her debts, and her financial problems were deemed current and not isolated. The judge concluded that the applicant had not made a good faith effort to repay or resolve her debts, despite having some disposable income. Ultimately, the judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or mitigation for either the criminal conduct or financial issues, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a felony conviction for Burglary, demonstrating a pattern of criminal conduct.
The applicant's financial issues remain unresolved, indicating a lack of good faith effort to address debts.
The applicant failed to provide supporting documentation for claims of financial rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J1raisedCriminal Conduct - Allegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
J2raisedCriminal Conduct - A Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
F1raisedFinancial Considerations - A History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
F3raisedFinancial Considerations - Inability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 6, 2005
Answer filedJul 6, 2005
Hearing heldSep 29, 2005
Decision dateNov 28, 2005

Cite For

Criminal Conduct as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline J
Financial Irresponsibility as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline F
Lack of Evidence for Rehabilitation in Security Clearance Cases.

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	The Applicant is financially overextended and at risk to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.a	The Applicant is indebted to each of the creditors listed in the SOR.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.b	The Applicant has not provided any supporting documentation to substantiate her testimony regarding her debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.c	The Applicant's financial problems remain current and are not isolated incidents.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.d	The Applicant has not initiated a good faith effort to repay her overdue creditors or otherwise resolve her debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.e	The Applicant has some disposable income at the end of the month that she could use to pay her past due bills.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.f	The Applicant has not explained how she will resolve her debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.g	The Applicant's credibility is in question regarding her financial situation.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

The Applicant is financially overextended and at risk to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.a

The Applicant is indebted to each of the creditors listed in the SOR.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.b

The Applicant has not provided any supporting documentation to substantiate her testimony regarding her debts.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.c

The Applicant's financial problems remain current and are not isolated incidents.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.d

The Applicant has not initiated a good faith effort to repay her overdue creditors or otherwise resolve her debts.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.e

The Applicant has some disposable income at the end of the month that she could use to pay her past due bills.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.f

The Applicant has not explained how she will resolve her debts.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.g

The Applicant's credibility is in question regarding her financial situation.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	In 1998, while working at a jewelry store, the Applicant stole a ring and a bracelet from her employer. She pawned it at a pawn stop for a couple of hundred dollars. She later stole a check from her co-worker's purse, endorsed the check to herself for approximately $500.00 and forged the co-workers signature. She tried to cash the check at her bank, which was also the same bank on the check, but the bank refused to cash it. The Applicant later turned herself into the local police department, and admitted to charges of stealing and forging a check. It is not clear from the record whether the Applicant knew that the woman whose check was stolen had already reported the incident to the police when the Applicant turned herself in. As a result of the police investigation, it was determined that numerous other items of jewelry were missing from the store. The police did an inventory of the items the Applicant had taken to the pawn shop and it was determined that many of them were from where the Applicant was employed. The Applicant contends that not all of the jewelry she pawned was from where she was employed. She contends that she was also purchasing jewelry on credit from three other stores, at the same time, and had been pawning that jewelry at the same pawn shop. She explained to the police that a co-worker was also responsible for stealing from the store. Nevertheless, the police accused the Applicant of stealing all of the missing items. (See Government Exhibit 4). The Applicant was charged with (1) Grand Theft, felony, (2) Thirteen Counts of Burglary, felony, and (3) Forgery of a Check. In 1999, the Applicant pled guilty to one Count of Burglary, and all remaining Counts were dismissed. The Applicant was placed on three years probation, fined $200.00, and ordered to serve 45 days, pay restitution of $2,920.00, attend anti-theft counseling program and disclose her conviction to prospective employers in which she would be trusted to handle an employer's inventory or money. (See Government Exhibit 5). The Applicant testified that she has learned great lessons from this mistake.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.a	In July 2003, the Applicant's young daughter was taking a shower when she got soap in her eyes and started crying, hysterically. The Applicant grabbed her daughter's arm and slapped her on the stomach which left a red mark. Later that evening, the Applicant's daughter was disrespectful to the Applicant. The Applicant slapped her daughter on the mouth which drew blood and left a bruise. The following day, the Applicant took her daughter to child care and they reported the child's injuries to Child Protective Services (CPS). Apparently, this was the second complaint CPS had received on the Applicant. The Applicant's daughter was removed from the Applicant's home. Her daughter was returned to the home in September 2003.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.b–2.g	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

In 1998, while working at a jewelry store, the Applicant stole a ring and a bracelet from her employer. She pawned it at a pawn stop for a couple of hundred dollars. She later stole a check from her co-worker's purse, endorsed the check to herself for approximately $500.00 and forged the co-workers signature. She tried to cash the check at her bank, which was also the same bank on the check, but the bank refused to cash it. The Applicant later turned herself into the local police department, and admitted to charges of stealing and forging a check. It is not clear from the record whether the Applicant knew that the woman whose check was stolen had already reported the incident to the police when the Applicant turned herself in. As a result of the police investigation, it was determined that numerous other items of jewelry were missing from the store. The police did an inventory of the items the Applicant had taken to the pawn shop and it was determined that many of them were from where the Applicant was employed. The Applicant contends that not all of the jewelry she pawned was from where she was employed. She contends that she was also purchasing jewelry on credit from three other stores, at the same time, and had been pawning that jewelry at the same pawn shop. She explained to the police that a co-worker was also responsible for stealing from the store. Nevertheless, the police accused the Applicant of stealing all of the missing items. (See Government Exhibit 4). The Applicant was charged with (1) Grand Theft, felony, (2) Thirteen Counts of Burglary, felony, and (3) Forgery of a Check. In 1999, the Applicant pled guilty to one Count of Burglary, and all remaining Counts were dismissed. The Applicant was placed on three years probation, fined $200.00, and ordered to serve 45 days, pay restitution of $2,920.00, attend anti-theft counseling program and disclose her conviction to prospective employers in which she would be trusted to handle an employer's inventory or money. (See Government Exhibit 5). The Applicant testified that she has learned great lessons from this mistake.

Against Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Convicted

Admitted

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

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

—

2.a

In July 2003, the Applicant's young daughter was taking a shower when she got soap in her eyes and started crying, hysterically. The Applicant grabbed her daughter's arm and slapped her on the stomach which left a red mark. Later that evening, the Applicant's daughter was disrespectful to the Applicant. The Applicant slapped her daughter on the mouth which drew blood and left a bruise. The following day, the Applicant took her daughter to child care and they reported the child's injuries to Child Protective Services (CPS). Apparently, this was the second complaint CPS had received on the Applicant. The Applicant's daughter was removed from the Applicant's home. Her daughter was returned to the home in September 2003.

Against Applicant

Domestic Violence

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

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

—

2.b–2.g

6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

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

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES