Summary
The applicant, a 55-year-old strategic cyber-security advisor, faced security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and B (Foreign Influence). The judge found that while the applicant mitigated concerns under Guideline B related to foreign influence, he failed to mitigate multiple instances of falsification and lack of candor under Guideline E. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant is married to a citizen of Canada, who is employed at the Canadian Embassy (3.a). Applicant answered 'No' to a question asking if he had ever had a security clearance suspended or revoked, despite his clearance being suspended in July 1998 (2.a). On November 19, 1998, while Applicant was on active duty, he received nonjudicial punishment for violation of a general order (2.b). Applicant opened a checking account with a bank on an overseas military installation and deposited a worthless check for $2,050 (2.c). In January 2003, Applicant was charged with obstructing a public officer and disorderly conduct involving drugs or alcohol, but the charges were later dismissed (2.d).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 16(a), AG ¶ 16(d), AG ¶ 16(e). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 17(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant had multiple instances of falsification in security clearance applications; The applicant demonstrated a lack of candor during the adjudication process; The applicant's past conduct raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had multiple instances of falsification in security clearance applications.
- The applicant demonstrated a lack of candor during the adjudication process.
- The applicant's past conduct raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Conditions referenced
- AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse Information
- AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation
- AG ¶ 17(c)appliedThe Offense Is Minor or Occurred Under Unique Circumstances
Key rule quoted
“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedJul 24, 2020
- Answer filedOct 8, 2020
- Hearing heldMar 7, 2023conducted by video teleconference
- Decision dateApr 6, 2023
Cite for
- Denial Based on Multiple Instances of Falsification Under Guideline E
- Lack of Candor Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility
- Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B