ISCR Case 20-00916

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00916

deniedJul 29, 2022· Hon. John Bayard Glendon· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old former U.S. Navy service member was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant admitted to multiple allegations, including two involuntary employment terminations. One termination in 2016 was for violating a company policy against dating active duty military personnel. The second, in October 2017, resulted from threatening gun violence against a co-worker, leading to criminal charges for making a criminal threat of death or great bodily injury in November 2017.

Following the threat incident, a court issued a three-year restraining order against the applicant, prohibiting contact with employees of the affected company. The applicant also failed to appear in court for the criminal charges and deliberately falsified a security clearance application by not disclosing these charges. Additionally, the applicant had significant financial issues, including a medical account in collection for approximately $317 and a charged-off loan account for approximately $11,799, contributing to over $57,000 in total debts.

The administrative judge denied the application, citing the applicant's admissions to job terminations for personal conduct, including threats of violence, and significant unresolved financial debts. These issues raised serious concerns about the applicant's reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment, indicating a potential for similar behavior to recur.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to being terminated from two jobs due to personal conduct issues, including making threats of violence.
The applicant has significant unresolved financial debts totaling over $57,000, raising concerns about reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's behavior indicated a serious lack of judgment, which may recur under similar circumstances.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedEvidence of Disputing Legitimacy of Past-due DebtThe applicant provided no documentary evidence to substantiate claims of disputing debts.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Beyond Control Causing Financial ProblemsSome debts arose during periods of limited income and personal hardship.
AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedMinor Offense or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's conduct was not minor and raised serious concerns about future behavior.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 1, 2020
Answer filedNov 16, 2021
Hearing heldMay 23, 2022via video teleconference
Decision dateJul 29, 2022

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Under Guidelines E, J, and F
Lack of Successful Rehabilitation in Criminal Conduct
Financial Irresponsibility Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant’s employment with Company A was involuntarily terminated in 2016 for violating company policy, which prohibited dating active duty military personnel.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	His employment with Company B was involuntarily terminated in October 2017 for threatening gun violence against a co-worker, who worked for Company C.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied with Explanation	—	—	—
1.c	In November 2017 Company C obtained a court restraining order prohibiting Applicant from having any contact with employees of Company C for three years.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant deliberately falsified his response to a question in Section 22 about his criminal record by failing to disclose the November 2017 criminal charges against Applicant arising out of the workplace threat incident alleged in SOR 1.b.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s employment with Company A was involuntarily terminated in 2016 for violating company policy, which prohibited dating active duty military personnel.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.b

His employment with Company B was involuntarily terminated in October 2017 for threatening gun violence against a co-worker, who worked for Company C.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied with Explanation

—

1.c

In November 2017 Company C obtained a court restraining order prohibiting Applicant from having any contact with employees of Company C for three years.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.d

Applicant deliberately falsified his response to a question in Section 22 about his criminal record by failing to disclose the November 2017 criminal charges against Applicant arising out of the workplace threat incident alleged in SOR 1.b.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant is ineligible for a clearance because he is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable, untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
3.e	Medical account in collection in the approximate amount of $317. $317	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
3.g	Loan account charged off in the approximate amount of $11,799. $11,799	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant is ineligible for a clearance because he is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable, untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

3.e

Medical account in collection in the approximate amount of $317.

$317

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Unknown

—

3.g

Loan account charged off in the approximate amount of $11,799.

$11,799

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	In November 2017 Applicant was charged with the offense of Criminal Threat of Death or Great Bodily Injury and then failed to appear in court as required.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Charged Not Convicted	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

In November 2017 Applicant was charged with the offense of Criminal Threat of Death or Great Bodily Injury and then failed to appear in court as required.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Charged Not Convicted

Unknown

—

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

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION