Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 62-year-old former contract specialist and self-employed beekeeper, faced security clearance denial under Guidelines F (Financial Considerations), J (Criminal Conduct), and E (Personal Conduct) due to a history of delinquent debts, criminal behavior, and falsification of information on his security clearance application. The judge found that the applicant's financial irresponsibility and criminal record raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately leading to the denial of his clearance.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: SOR ¶ 3.a alleges that Applicant falsified his SCA by answering 'No' to questions asking whether he had ever been charged with a felony offense and not disclosing that he was charged with perjury in 2002 (3.a). SOR ¶ 3.b alleges that Applicant falsified his SCA by answering 'No' to questions asking whether he had ever been charged with felony embezzlement in January 2006 (3.b). SOR ¶ 3.c alleges that Applicant falsified his SCA by answering 'No' to a question asking if he had ever been charged with an offense involving firearms or explosives (3.c). SOR ¶ 3.d alleges that Applicant falsified his SCA by answering 'No' to a question asking if he had ever been charged with an offense involving firearms or explosives and failing to disclose that he was arrested in September 2003 for transporting a firearm while subject to a protective order (3.d). SOR ¶ 3.e alleges that Applicant violated the terms of his supervised release in March 2022, by leaving the jurisdiction and traveling to another state without obtaining proper permission (3.e). SOR ¶ 1.a alleges credit-card debts to the same creditor that were charged off for $26,028; the last payments on these debts were in October and December 2019 (1.a). SOR ¶ 1.b alleges credit-card debts to the same creditor that were charged off for $16,791; the last payments on these debts were in October and December 2019 (1.b). SOR ¶ 1.c alleges credit-card debts to the same creditor that were charged off for $5,702; the last payments on these debts were in October and December 2019 (1.c). SOR ¶ 1.d alleges a debt of $4,864 to the Social Security Administration that was placed for collection; this debt was a result of Applicant's conviction of fraud (1.d). SOR ¶ 1.e alleges a debt to an insurance company placed for collection of $98; after Applicant was questioned about his delinquent debts, he settled this debt for less than the full amount (1.e). SOR ¶ 1.f alleges a child-support arrearage of $5 that was placed for collection; Applicant apparently fell behind on his child-support payments while he was incarcerated (1.f). SOR ¶ 2.a alleges that Applicant was indicted for fraudulently obtaining Social Security benefits; he was convicted of Counts 2, 3, and 4 (2.a). SOR ¶ 2.b alleges that Applicant was charged with trespassing, larceny, and a parole violation; he was convicted and sentenced to three days in jail (2.b). SOR ¶ 2.c alleges that Applicant was arrested for embezzlement; he was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses (2.c). SOR ¶ 2.d alleges that Applicant was convicted of false advertising and impersonating a federal agent; he was placed on probation for one year and paid a fine (2.d). SOR ¶ 2.e alleges that Applicant was charged with perjury; he was convicted of an amended charge of disorderly conduct and sentenced to 30 days in jail, suspended (2.e). SOR ¶ 2.f alleges that Applicant was charged with failure to go to his appointed place of duty; he was found not guilty (2.f). SOR ¶ 2.g alleges that Applicant was administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions for misconduct; his discharge was later upgraded to honorable (2.g).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c), AG ¶ 31(a), AG ¶ 31(b), AG ¶ 31(e), AG ¶ 16(a). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 32(a), AG ¶ 32(d), AG ¶ 17(a), AG ¶ 17(b), AG ¶ 17(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant had multiple delinquent debts and a history of criminal conduct, including convictions for fraud and embezzlement; The applicant falsified information on his security clearance application, undermining the integrity of the process; The applicant's explanations for his conduct were deemed unconvincing, and he failed to demonstrate rehabilitation or a good-faith effort to resolve his financial issues.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

• The applicant had multiple delinquent debts and a history of criminal conduct, including convictions for fraud and embezzlement.
• The applicant falsified information on his security clearance application, undermining the integrity of the process.
• The applicant's explanations for his conduct were deemed unconvincing, and he failed to demonstrate rehabilitation or a good-faith effort to resolve his financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedDec 15, 2023
• Answer filedDec 27, 2023
• Hearing heldOct 30, 2024
• Decision dateDec 18, 2024

Cite For

• Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
• Criminal Conduct Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
• Falsification of Information on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E