Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02170 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date3/2/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Lauren L. Shure
Judge: Richard A. CEFOLA
Guidelines Evaluated
- EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR 24-02170, answered from its own record: what was alleged, what the judge found, where it says so. Descriptive only; never advice.

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only, not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 24-02170denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-02170

deniedMar 2, 2026· Hon. Richard A. CEFOLA· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 34-year-old rigger for a DoD contractor, faced security clearance denial under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to a history of multiple arrests and convictions, including fraud and domestic violence. The judge found that the applicant's criminal conduct raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, and he failed to provide sufficient mitigating evidence.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of multiple arrests and convictions, including fraud and domestic violence.
The applicant admitted to several allegations but did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns.
The applicant's criminal conduct continues to cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(a)raisedPattern of Criminal Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse Information

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 25, 2025
Answer filedMar 13, 2025Requested decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateMar 2, 2026

Cite For

Denial Based on a Pattern of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Lack of Mitigating Evidence for Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Importance of Demonstrating Rehabilitation and Good Judgment 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.

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 personal conduct allegations under Guideline E, determining that the applicant's history of criminal misconduct and lack of candor raised significant security concerns. The applicant did not mitigate these concerns, leading to a denial of national security eligibility.

2.a Cross-allegations with paragraph 1 in its entirety. See discussion supra.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations
Concealed issue: —
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16): —
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Cross-allegations with paragraph 1 in its entirety. See discussion supra.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	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 on all allegations under Guideline J, citing a long history of criminal conduct that raises significant concerns about the applicant's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. The applicant admitted to several criminal offenses, including fraud and domestic violence, which were not sufficiently mitigated by any evidence of rehabilitation or positive behavioral changes.

1.a 2023 arrest (False Pretenses): Beginning in approximately June 2021, Applicant filed for unemployment despite having a part-time job. Over the course of several months, he fraudulently obtained approximately $15,000. In January 2023, after being contacted by State Police, he confessed to the scheme. Applicant was subsequently arrested on or about January 31, 2023, for the felonies Obtaining Money Under False Pretenses (over $1,500) and Unauthorized Computer Access. On June 21, 2023, in accordance with a plea deal, he pled nolo contendere to the misdemeanor of Obtaining Money Under False Pretenses (less than $1,500). Applicant was required to pay back $15,604, which he did by taking out a loan from his credit union. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted, noting that he “realized that this was wrong after being arrested.” (Answer at 1; GE 3 at 20-21; GE 5 at 5; GE 6 at 7, 18)
Finding: Against Applicant
Offense: Fraud or Deception Criminal
Criminal disposition: Convicted
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶31):
(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability
(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction
Mitigating applied (¶32): —
Mitigation: —
1.b 2018 arrest (Domestic Violence): On or about June 27, 2018, Applicant had an altercation in his apartment with CM during which he restrained her by holding her “by her shoulders and neck.” He was arrested that day by local law enforcement for the felony Domestic Strangulation. On August 8, 2018, in accordance with a plea deal, Applicant was convicted of misdemeanor Domestic Violence – Disorderly Conduct. The court levied a no-contact order against Applicant as to both CM and Applicant’s then eight-year-old daughter. Applicant was required to receive a mental health evaluation and attend 13-weeks of counselling, which he did. The no-contact order was lifted on January 18, 2019. Applicant denied the allegation as drafted, stating that at the time of the incident, CM had drug problems and lied to the police. This is contrary to his May 20, 2024, statement to investigators (that he adopted on December 4, 2024, and swore to be accurate). Applicant claimed in his Answer that he only held her by her shoulders – not her neck – in an effort “to stop her from smashing things.” He also stated he would provide a letter from CM, but no such letter is in the record. (Answer at 1; GE 3 at 23; GE 4 at 1, 3, 5, 7; GE 5 at 5; GE 6 at 8-9, 14, 16)
Finding: Against Applicant
Offense: Domestic Violence
Criminal disposition: Convicted
Response: Denied
Disqualifying (¶31):
(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability
(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction
Mitigating applied (¶32): —
Mitigation: —
1.c 2017 arrest (Domestic Violence): On or about January 25, 2017, Applicant and CM engaged in an intoxicated, mutual, physical altercation in his apartment where Applicant ended up restraining CM by her neck. Applicant maintains he was the one who contacted local law enforcement, but he ended up being arrested for misdemeanor Domestic Violence – Simple Assault and Disorderly Conduct. The charges were dismissed on February 22, 2017. Applicant denied the allegation as drafted because the charges were dismissed and “the police were called falsely.” This is despite his previous statement that he was the one who called them. (Answer at 1, 5; GE 3 at 22-23; GE 4 at 9, 11; GE 5 at 4; GE 6 at 9, 14)
Finding: Against Applicant
Offense: Domestic Violence
Criminal disposition: Dismissed or Nolle Prossed
Response: Denied
Disqualifying (¶31):
(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction
Mitigating applied (¶32): —
Mitigation: —
1.d 2015 arrest (Property Damage / Leaving the Scene): On or about July 16, 2015, Applicant was looking at his phone while driving and rear-ended a tow truck. Applicant drove away as his vehicle was not registered and he had no insurance. Applicant was arrested for misdemeanor Duty to Stop / Damage to Vehicle. On August 4, 2015, in accordance with a plea deal, he pled nolo contendere to the offense. The court sentenced him to pay restitution ($2,970), a year of probation, and court costs ($94). In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted, noting that he “made a very bad decision.” (Answer at 1; GE 4 at 13-14; GE 5 at 4; GE 6 at 10)
Finding: Against Applicant
Offense: Vandalism or Property Damage
Criminal disposition: Convicted
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶31):
(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability
(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction
Mitigating applied (¶32): —
Mitigation: —
1.e 2012 arrest (Warrant): On or about January 30, 2012, Applicant was arrested pursuant to warrant for failure to appear. Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. (Answer at 1; GE 5 at 4; GE 6 at 10)
Finding: Against Applicant
Offense: Unspecified Criminal Conduct
Criminal disposition: Arrested Not Charged
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶31):
(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction
Mitigating applied (¶32): —
Mitigation: —
1.f 2011 arrest (Domestic Violence): On or about July 3, 2011, Applicant was drinking alcohol at a party with CM. On the way home, they got into an argument and Applicant threw his phone out the car window (thinking it was her phone). Applicant then stopped the car to look for his phone. Local law enforcement was contacted by an unknown party and arrived on scene. Applicant was uncooperative with the police and was arrested for misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct and Assault of a Police Officer. The case was ultimately dismissed by the court on September 9, 2011. Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. (Answer at 2-3); GE 5 at 3; GE 6 at 11)
Finding: Against Applicant
Offense: Domestic Violence
Criminal disposition: Dismissed or Nolle Prossed
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶31):
(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction
Mitigating applied (¶32): —
Mitigation: —
1.g 2010 arrest (Warrant): On or about July 25, 2010, Applicant was arrested pursuant to warrant for failure to appear. Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. (Answer at 1; GE 5 at 3; GE 6 at 11)
Finding: Against Applicant
Offense: Unspecified Criminal Conduct
Criminal disposition: Arrested Not Charged
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶31):
(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction
Mitigating applied (¶32): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	2023 arrest (False Pretenses): Beginning in approximately June 2021, Applicant filed for unemployment despite having a part-time job. Over the course of several months, he fraudulently obtained approximately $15,000. In January 2023, after being contacted by State Police, he confessed to the scheme. Applicant was subsequently arrested on or about January 31, 2023, for the felonies Obtaining Money Under False Pretenses (over $1,500) and Unauthorized Computer Access. On June 21, 2023, in accordance with a plea deal, he pled nolo contendere to the misdemeanor of Obtaining Money Under False Pretenses (less than $1,500). Applicant was required to pay back $15,604, which he did by taking out a loan from his credit union. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted, noting that he “realized that this was wrong after being arrested.” (Answer at 1; GE 3 at 20-21; GE 5 at 5; GE 6 at 7, 18)	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	2018 arrest (Domestic Violence): On or about June 27, 2018, Applicant had an altercation in his apartment with CM during which he restrained her by holding her “by her shoulders and neck.” He was arrested that day by local law enforcement for the felony Domestic Strangulation. On August 8, 2018, in accordance with a plea deal, Applicant was convicted of misdemeanor Domestic Violence – Disorderly Conduct. The court levied a no-contact order against Applicant as to both CM and Applicant’s then eight-year-old daughter. Applicant was required to receive a mental health evaluation and attend 13-weeks of counselling, which he did. The no-contact order was lifted on January 18, 2019. Applicant denied the allegation as drafted, stating that at the time of the incident, CM had drug problems and lied to the police. This is contrary to his May 20, 2024, statement to investigators (that he adopted on December 4, 2024, and swore to be accurate). Applicant claimed in his Answer that he only held her by her shoulders – not her neck – in an effort “to stop her from smashing things.” He also stated he would provide a letter from CM, but no such letter is in the record. (Answer at 1; GE 3 at 23; GE 4 at 1, 3, 5, 7; GE 5 at 5; GE 6 at 8-9, 14, 16)	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.c	2017 arrest (Domestic Violence): On or about January 25, 2017, Applicant and CM engaged in an intoxicated, mutual, physical altercation in his apartment where Applicant ended up restraining CM by her neck. Applicant maintains he was the one who contacted local law enforcement, but he ended up being arrested for misdemeanor Domestic Violence – Simple Assault and Disorderly Conduct. The charges were dismissed on February 22, 2017. Applicant denied the allegation as drafted because the charges were dismissed and “the police were called falsely.” This is despite his previous statement that he was the one who called them. (Answer at 1, 5; GE 3 at 22-23; GE 4 at 9, 11; GE 5 at 4; GE 6 at 9, 14)	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Denied	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.d	2015 arrest (Property Damage / Leaving the Scene): On or about July 16, 2015, Applicant was looking at his phone while driving and rear-ended a tow truck. Applicant drove away as his vehicle was not registered and he had no insurance. Applicant was arrested for misdemeanor Duty to Stop / Damage to Vehicle. On August 4, 2015, in accordance with a plea deal, he pled nolo contendere to the offense. The court sentenced him to pay restitution ($2,970), a year of probation, and court costs ($94). In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted, noting that he “made a very bad decision.” (Answer at 1; GE 4 at 13-14; GE 5 at 4; GE 6 at 10)	Against Applicant	Vandalism or Property Damage	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.e	2012 arrest (Warrant): On or about January 30, 2012, Applicant was arrested pursuant to warrant for failure to appear. Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. (Answer at 1; GE 5 at 4; GE 6 at 10)	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Arrested Not Charged	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.f	2011 arrest (Domestic Violence): On or about July 3, 2011, Applicant was drinking alcohol at a party with CM. On the way home, they got into an argument and Applicant threw his phone out the car window (thinking it was her phone). Applicant then stopped the car to look for his phone. Local law enforcement was contacted by an unknown party and arrived on scene. Applicant was uncooperative with the police and was arrested for misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct and Assault of a Police Officer. The case was ultimately dismissed by the court on September 9, 2011. Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. (Answer at 2-3); GE 5 at 3; GE 6 at 11)	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.g	2010 arrest (Warrant): On or about July 25, 2010, Applicant was arrested pursuant to warrant for failure to appear. Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. (Answer at 1; GE 5 at 3; GE 6 at 11)	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Arrested Not Charged	Admitted	(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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

learance ) Appearances For Government: Lauren L. Shure, Esq, Department C

DECISION

unsel For Applicant: Pro se 03/02/2026 Decision CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns rais

STATEMENT OF CASE

dunder the Personal Conduct and Criminal Conduct guidelines. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing on December 7, 2023 (Questionnaire). On August 25, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Progra

FINDINGS OF FACT

(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within DoD after June 8, 2017. On March 13, 2025, Applicant responded to the SOR in writing (Answer) and requested that the case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. In his Answer, Applicant admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶1.a, 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, and 2.a, and denied the rest. On December 5, 2025, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case in a File of Relevant Material (FORM). A complete copy of the FORM, consisting of Government Exhibits (GE) 1 to 6 and the Government’s arguments in support of the SOR, was received by the Applicant on January 6, 2026. He was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns, but he did not respond within the period specified to do so. The case was assigned to me on February 23, 2026, and GE 1 to 6 were admitted without objection. Findings of Fact Applicant is 34 years old and is presently employed as a rigger for a DoD contractor where he has worked since October 2022. He submitted the Questionnaire approximately a year after starting his employment with the DoD contractor and adjudication remains pending. He is unmarried but has been living with his girlfriend (CM) since 2009. Applicant has three children. (GE 3 at 5-6, 9, 13-14; GE 6 at 12) SOR Paragraph 1, Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he has engaged in criminal conduct that calls into question his ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. I find the following facts regarding this allegation: 1.a. 2023 arrest (False Pretenses): Beginning in approximately June 2021, Applicant filed for unemployment despite having a part-time job. Over the course of several months, he fraudulently obtained approximately $15,000. In January 2023, after being contacted by State Police, he confessed to the scheme. Applicant was subsequently arrested on or about January 31, 2023, for the felonies Obtaining Money Under False Pretenses (over $1,500) and Unauthorized Computer Access. On June 21, 2023, in accordance with a plea deal, he pled nolo contendere to the misdemeanor of Obtaining Money Under False Pretenses (less than $1,500). Applicant was required to pay back $15,604, which he did by taking out a loan from his credit union. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted, noting that he “realized that this was wrong after be

POLICIES

ng arrested.” (Answer at 1; GE 3 at 20-21; GE 5 at 5; GE 6 at 7, 18) 1.b. 2018 arrest (Domestic Violence): On or about June 27, 2018, Applicant had an altercation in his apartment with CM during which he restrained her by holding her “by her shoulders and neck.” He was arrested that day by local law enforcement for the felony Domestic Strangulation. On August 8, 2018, in accordance with a plea deal, Applicant was convicted of misdemeanor Domestic Violence – Disorderly Conduct. The court levied a no-contact order against Applicant as to both CM and Applicant’s then eight-year- old daughter. Applicant was required to receive a mental health evaluation and attend 13-weeks of counselling, which he did. 2 The no-contact order was lifted on January 18, 2019. Applicant denied the allegation as drafted, stating that at the time of the incident, CM had drug problems and lied to the police. This is contrary to his May 20, 2024, statement to investigators (that he adopted on December 4, 2024, and swore to be accurate). Applicant claimed in his Answer that he only held her by her shoulders – not her neck – in an effort “to stop her from smashing things.” He also stated he would provide a letter from CM, but no such letter is in the record. (Answer at 1; GE 3 at 23; GE 4 at 1, 3, 5, 7; GE 5 at 5; GE 6 at 8- 9, 14, 16) 1.c. 2017 arrest (Domestic Violence): On or about January 25, 2017, Applicant and CM engaged in an intoxicated, mutual, physical altercation in his apartment where Applicant ended up restraining CM by her neck. Applicant maintains he was the one who contacted local law enforcement, but he ended up being arrested for misdemeanor Domestic Violence – Simple Assault and Disorderly Conduct. The charges were dismissed on February 22

ANALYSIS

2017. Applicant denied the allegation as drafted because the charges were dismissed and “the police were called falsely.” This is despite his previous statement that he was the one who called them. (Answer at 1, 5; GE 3 at 22-23; GE 4 at 9, 11; GE 5 at 4; GE 6 at 9, 14) 1.d. 2015 arrest (Property Damage / Leaving the Scene): On or about July 16, 2015, Applicant was looking at his phone while driving and rear-ended a tow truck. Applicant drove away as his vehicle was not registered and he had no insurance. Applicant was arrested for misdemeanor Duty to Stop / Damage to Vehicle. On August 4, 2015, in accordance with a plea deal, he pled nolo contendere to the offense. The court sentenced him to pay restitution ($2,970), a year of probation, and court costs ($94). In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted, noting that he “made a very bad decision.” (Answer at 1; GE 4 at 13-14; GE 5 at 4; GE 6 at 10) 1.e. 2012 arrest (Warrant): On or about January 30, 2012, Applicant was arrested pursuant to warrant for failure to appear. Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. (Answer at 1; GE 5 at 4; GE 6 at 10) 1.f. 2011 arrest (Domestic Violence): On or about July 3, 2011, Applicant was drinking alcohol at a party with CM. On the way home, they got into an argument and Applicant threw his phone out the car window (thinking it was her phone). Applicant then stopped the car to look for his phone. Local law enforcement was contacted by an unknown party and arrived on scene. Applicant was uncooperative with the police and was arrested for misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct and Assault of a Police Officer. The case was ultimately dismissed by the court on September 9, 2011. Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. (Answer at 2-3); GE 5 at 3; GE 6 at 11) 1.g. 2010 arrest (Warrant): On or about July 25, 2010, Applicant was arrested pursuant to warrant for failure to appear. Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. (Answer at 1; GE 5 at 3; GE 6 at 11) 3 SOR Paragraph 2, Guideline E (Personal Conduct) The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he had engaged in conduct that involved questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. I find the following facts regarding this allegation: 2.a. Cross-allegations with paragraph 1 in its entirety. See discussion supra. Whole Person and Mitigating Evidence Applicant submitted comments and explanations in his Answer as whole person evidence in mitigation of the security concerns alleged in the SOR. This submission was reviewed in its entirety, as well the comments and explanations Applicant included in both his Questionnaire and responses to interrogatories. In addition, in his responses to interrogatories, Applicant provided the name of a potential witness with contact information, but no statement from the same. The Hearing Office declines Applicant’s offer to conduct additional investigation on his behalf. (Answer; GE 3; GE 6 at 3) Policies When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility. 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context 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 national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires, “Any 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. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or conjecture. 4 Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “The applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

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 national security eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified or sensitive information. Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also Executive Order 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information.) Analysis SOR Paragraph 1, Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) The security concern for criminal conduct is set out in AG ¶ 30: Criminal activity creates doubt about an Applicant’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. AG ¶ 31 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. The following 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 (

FORMAL FINDINGS

) 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. 5 From July 2010 through January 2023, Applicant was arrested at least seven times for various criminal offenses including failure to appear, domestic violence, and f

CONCLUSION

aud. AG ¶¶ 31 (a) and (b) are applicable; therefore, the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate security concerns under Guideline J. Conditions that could mitigate crimina