Summary
The applicant, a 25-year-old single mother, faced security concerns under Guidelines E, F, G, and J due to her alcohol use, multiple DUI convictions, financial issues, and deliberate falsification of her security application. The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate these concerns, leading to a denial of her eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The government alleged Applicant deliberately falsified her response to question 16 of her SF 85P (arrests, charges, and/or convictions for any offense in the past seven years) by omitting the two arrests alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c and 1.d (2.a). The government alleged that she deliberately falsified her answer to question 22 (debts currently more than 180 days past) by omitting from her answer several delinquent debts listed in SOR 3 (2.b). Owes approximately $1,738 on a credit card account that has been charged off (3.a). Owes approximately $1,222 on a credit card account that has been charged off (3.b). Owes approximately $9,712 on an auto loan account that has been charged off (3.c). Owes approximately $500 for a utility account that has been charged off (3.d). Owes approximately $300 for a cable television account that has been charged off (3.e). Owes approximately $1,000 for a personal loan account that has been charged off (3.f). Owes approximately $2,685 on a credit card account that has been charged off (3.g). Owes approximately $400 for a residential telephone account that has been charged off (3.h). Owes approximately $600 for a cell phone account that has been charged off (3.i). Owes approximately $9,000 for a cash advance company that has been charged off (3.j). Owes approximately $1,000 for a personal loan account that has been charged off (3.k). Owes approximately $500 for a personal loan account that has been charged off (3.l). Owes approximately $1,200 for a car insurance account that has been charged off (3.m). Owes approximately $300 for a personal loan account that has been charged off (3.n). Owes approximately $400 for a personal loan account that has been charged off (3.o). Owes approximately $500 for a personal loan account that has been charged off (3.p). The government alleged that Applicant drank alcohol at times to excess between June 2003 and September 2004 (1.a). The government alleged that in June 2003 she was charged with and convicted of DUI (1.b). The government alleged that in March 2004 she was again charged with and convicted of DUI (1.c). The government alleged that in September 2004 she was charged with and convicted of DUI, and that the charge was still pending trial as of the SOR issuance (1.d). The government alleged as criminal conduct, Applicant’s falsifications listed in SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b, insofar as her answers may violate 18 U.S.C. 1001 (SOR ¶ 4.a) (4.a). Applicant’s three DUI arrests and convictions listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.a - 1.c (SOR ¶ 4.b) (4.b).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A5.1.2.2, E2.A7.1.2.1, E2.A6.1.1. The decision turned on the following: The applicant had multiple DUI convictions, indicating a pattern of alcohol-related misconduct; She failed to disclose significant financial debts and additional DUI arrests on her security application, demonstrating a lack of candor; The applicant continued to consume alcohol in violation of court orders, raising concerns about her judgment and reliability.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant had multiple DUI convictions, indicating a pattern of alcohol-related misconduct.
- She failed to disclose significant financial debts and additional DUI arrests on her security application, demonstrating a lack of candor.
- The applicant continued to consume alcohol in violation of court orders, raising concerns about her judgment and reliability.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
- E2.A7.1.2.1appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
- E2.A6.1.1appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
Key Rule Quoted
“The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMay 2, 2006
- Answer filed—
- Hearing heldJan 8, 2007
- Decision dateApr 30, 2007
Cite For
- Lack of Candor in Security Applications Under Guideline E
- Pattern of Alcohol-related Misconduct Under Guideline G
- Financial Irresponsibility and Its Impact on Security Clearance Under Guideline F