ISCR Case 16-00466.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00466.h1

deniedAug 10, 2018· Hon. Caroline E. Heintzelman· hearing

Summary

A 48-year-old engineer with 30 years of holding a Department of Defense security clearance was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from two arrests for solicitation of a prostitute and an extra-marital affair that resulted in a child. The judge determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate credibility and honesty during the investigation.

Specifically, the applicant was arrested and charged with solicitation of a prostitute in 2005, pleading no contest and receiving six months of probation. He was arrested again for the same offense in 2011, also pleading no contest. Both incidents occurred while he held a security clearance. Additionally, in 2012, while working in Country B, the applicant engaged in an extra-marital affair with a Country B national, resulting in a child born in 2015. He did not disclose the existence of this child to his wife, family, friends, or employer.

Further concerns arose from the applicant's disclosure of the 2011 arrest. He did not include it in his 2014 Security Clearance Application, attributing this to a transmission error, but did inform his security manager. During a January 2016 interview, he voluntarily disclosed the arrest and stated he had not solicited a prostitute before 2011. However, in his August 2017 Answer to the Statement of Reasons, he claimed he did not remember being asked about prior solicitations. The denial was based on his questionable judgment, lack of candor, inconsistent statements, and failure to disclose significant personal conduct.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's two arrests for solicitation of a prostitute while holding a security clearance demonstrated questionable judgment.
The applicant's lack of candor and inconsistent statements during the investigation undermined his credibility.
The applicant failed to disclose significant personal conduct, including an extra-marital affair and a child, which created vulnerabilities.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the AG.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 12, 2016
Answer filedAug 30, 2016
Hearing heldMay 23, 2018Applicant testified.
Decision dateAug 10, 2018

Cite For

Questionable Judgment and Lack of Candor Under Guideline E
Impact of Inconsistent Statements on Credibility
Vulnerability to Exploitation Due to Personal Conduct

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 was arrested in 2005, and charged with solicitation of a prostitute. He pled no contest and was given six months of probation. Using the internet, Applicant solicited a person he believed to be a prostitute. Applicant claimed he engaged in this behavior because he was immature and peer pressured by on-line friends to solicit a prostitute. Applicant held a security clearance at the time of the arrest and conviction.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
1.b	Applicant was arrested in 2011, and charged with solicitation of a prostitute. He pled no contest. At the hearing, Applicant stated he met the woman in a public place, they discussed the details of the transaction, and shortly thereafter he was arrested. Applicant held a security clearance at the time of the arrest and conviction.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
1.c	In 2012, Applicant left State A, where he lived with his wife, and moved to Country B for work. He then engaged in an extra-marital affair with a Country B national, and they had a child in 2015. Prior to leaving the United States, he planned to divorce his wife, but did not due to her medical issues. Applicant’s failure to be forthright and open about the existence of his daughter to his wife, family, friends, and employer creates a vulnerability and further demonstrates questionable judgment and a lack of candor.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
1.d	Applicant did not disclose the 2011 arrest in his 2014 SCA due to a transmission error, but told his security manager. During a January 2016 interview with a government investigator, Applicant voluntarily disclosed the arrest and told the investigator that he never solicited a prostitute before his 2011 arrest, and he intended to never engage in this activity again. In his August 2017 Answer to the SOR, Applicant claimed he did not lie to the investigator, and he did not remember being asked if he solicited a prostitute before 2011.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was arrested in 2005, and charged with solicitation of a prostitute. He pled no contest and was given six months of probation. Using the internet, Applicant solicited a person he believed to be a prostitute. Applicant claimed he engaged in this behavior because he was immature and peer pressured by on-line friends to solicit a prostitute. Applicant held a security clearance at the time of the arrest and conviction.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Denied

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

1.b

Applicant was arrested in 2011, and charged with solicitation of a prostitute. He pled no contest. At the hearing, Applicant stated he met the woman in a public place, they discussed the details of the transaction, and shortly thereafter he was arrested. Applicant held a security clearance at the time of the arrest and conviction.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Denied

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

1.c

In 2012, Applicant left State A, where he lived with his wife, and moved to Country B for work. He then engaged in an extra-marital affair with a Country B national, and they had a child in 2015. Prior to leaving the United States, he planned to divorce his wife, but did not due to her medical issues. Applicant’s failure to be forthright and open about the existence of his daughter to his wife, family, friends, and employer creates a vulnerability and further demonstrates questionable judgment and a lack of candor.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

1.d

Applicant did not disclose the 2011 arrest in his 2014 SCA due to a transmission error, but told his security manager. During a January 2016 interview with a government investigator, Applicant voluntarily disclosed the arrest and told the investigator that he never solicited a prostitute before his 2011 arrest, and he intended to never engage in this activity again. In his August 2017 Answer to the SOR, Applicant claimed he did not lie to the investigator, and he did not remember being asked if he solicited a prostitute before 2011.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in Interview

—

Denied

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

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

FOOTNOTES