Summary
The applicant, a 39-year-old electrician with a history of criminal conduct, personal conduct issues, and financial difficulties, faced security clearance denial under Guidelines J, E, and F. Despite some positive character references and a commendable work record, the judge found that the applicant's extensive criminal history, lack of candor in his security clearance application, and unresolved financial obligations raised significant security concerns. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Cross-alleges the conduct in SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.n (2.a). The SOR alleges that Applicant falsified his SCA by deliberately failing to disclose the conduct alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.i through 1.m (2.b). The SOR alleges that Applicant falsified his SCA by deliberately failing to disclose the conduct alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.g, 1.j, and 1.n (2.c). The SOR alleges three medical debts placed for collection of $380, $178, and $704 (3.a). The debts are reflected in the credit report from November 2017 as referred for collection and reflected in the credit report from January 2020 as unpaid (3.b). The SOR alleges a child-support arrearage of about $23,000. The arrearage is not reflected in the two credit reports submitted by Department Counsel (3.c). Applicant disclosed the arrearage in his SCA and admitted it at the hearing. He has $700 per month deducted from his pay, but the deduction is for his monthly payments and not the arrearage (3.d). In May 2000, Applicant was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, was ordered to perform two days of community service, and was given a conditional discharge (1.a). In July 2001, Applicant was arrested and charged with grand larceny, reckless endangerment (2nd degree), and unauthorized use of a vehicle without the owner’s consent. He pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of a vehicle (1.b). In December 2002, Applicant was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle (the stolen vehicle involved in SOR ¶ 1.b) without a license and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle (3rd degree). He pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle without a license and was fined $50 (1.c). In December 2003, Applicant was arrested and charged with operating a vehicle on a suspended license. He admitted it in his answer to the SOR, but it is not reflected in any of the documentary evidence submitted at the hearing (1.d). In April 2004, Applicant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and driving with a suspended or revoked license. He pleaded guilty to DUI and was sentenced to confinement for one year, with nine months suspended, suspension of his driver’s license for one year, and a $900 fine (1.e). In November 2004, Applicant was arrested on a capias warrant and charged with a probation violation related to his DUI conviction in April 2004. In his answer to the SOR, he admitted this allegation and stated that his military obligations restrained him from taking necessary steps to resolve past issues (1.f). In September 2007, Applicant was charged with assault and battery on a family member and threatening bodily harm. He was convicted of assault and battery, fined $200, and required to make restitution (1.g). In March 2009, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) (2nd offense) and refusal of a blood or breath test (2nd offense). He pleaded guilty to both offenses on the advice of his lawyer (1.h). In February 2012, Applicant was arrested and charged with operating a vehicle on a suspended or revoked license. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to confinement for 365 days, suspended, probation for one year, and a $250 fine (1.i). In May 2012, Applicant was arrested and charged with assault and battery. The charges were dismissed (1.j). In December 2012, Applicant was arrested and charged with operating a vehicle with a suspended or revoked license, operating a vehicle with altered, forged, or fictitious license plates, and an illegal inspection sticker. He was convicted of all offenses (1.k). In April 2014, Applicant was arrested and charged with contempt of court for failing to appear at a child-support hearing. He was found not guilty (1.l). During his background investigation, Applicant was interviewed by a security investigator in October 2018. During that interview, he admitted that he was arrested in 2015 and charged with driving a vehicle with a suspended driver’s license, an expired vehicle registration, and an expired safety inspection stocker. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to confinement for ten days, with five days suspended (1.m). In December 2015, Applicant was arrested and charged with making a false statement on a criminal history form (a felony) and making a false statement to obtain a firearm. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of falsely identifying himself to a law enforcement officer (1.n).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 31(a), AG ¶ 31(b), AG ¶ 16(a), AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(b), AG ¶ 19(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant had a lengthy history of criminal conduct, including multiple arrests and convictions; The applicant falsified his security clearance application by omitting relevant criminal history; The applicant failed to resolve significant financial obligations, including child support arrears.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant had a lengthy history of criminal conduct, including multiple arrests and convictions.
- The applicant falsified his security clearance application by omitting relevant criminal history.
- The applicant failed to resolve significant financial obligations, including child support arrears.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 31(a)appliedPattern of Minor Offenses
- AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
- AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission or Falsification
- AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(b)appliedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
Key Rule Quoted
“An applicant has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 30, 2019
- Answer filedSep 24, 2019
- Hearing heldAug 24, 2020conducted via video teleconference
- Decision dateOct 6, 2020
Cite For
- Denial Based on Extensive Criminal History Under Guideline J
- Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
- Failure to Resolve Financial Obligations Under Guideline F