ISCR Case 05-03381.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-03381.h1

deniedAug 3, 2007· Hon. Shari Dam· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old former U.S. Navy Petty Officer First Class was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of criminal charges, including six convictions across eight offenses, and a consistent failure to disclose significant adverse information on multiple security clearance applications.

Specifically, the applicant did not report criminal charges from November 2000 and December 2001, a December 2001 embezzlement charge, or a court-martial proceeding on his November 2002 and May 2005 applications. He also failed to disclose an October 2002 bankruptcy and an employment termination. During a January 2004 interview, he omitted details about Navy disciplinary actions and did not explain his prior omissions. The applicant acknowledged that his privacy concerns outweighed his disclosure responsibilities.

The judge found that the applicant's repeated omissions, coupled with his justifications for non-disclosure, demonstrated a lack of candor and questionable judgment. Despite the application of some mitigating conditions, the applicant did not adequately address the security concerns raised by his conduct, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to disclose multiple criminal charges and a bankruptcy on his security clearance applications.
The applicant's history of criminal conduct included eight offenses, with six convictions, raising significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's repeated omissions and justifications for not disclosing adverse information demonstrated a lack of candor and questionable judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J30raisedCriminal Conduct
J31raisedCriminal Conduct
E15raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

J32rejectedCriminal ConductThe applicant did not provide evidence of successful rehabilitation or a significant period free from misconduct.
E17rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant acknowledged his behavior but did not obtain counseling or take steps to alleviate the issues that led to his conduct.

Key Rule Quoted

“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 3, 2007
Answer filedApr 16, 2007
Hearing heldJun 27, 2007
Decision dateAug 3, 2007

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Adverse Information on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct History Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Lack of Successful Rehabilitation as a Factor in Security Clearance Denial.

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	When he completed security clearance applications in November 2002 and May 2005, he did not disclose all of the criminal charges, a bankruptcy, and an employment termination.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.b	He deliberately did not submit the information because he felt uncomfortable sharing it with another employee and felt his privacy rights were being infringed.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.c	He did not list the December 2001 embezzlement charge required under question 21, or the court martial proceeding under question 25.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.d	He did not list the November 2000 and December 2001 criminal charges that should have been disclosed under question 26.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.e	He also failed to disclose the October 2002 bankruptcy under question 33.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.f	He acknowledged that his persistent concern for privacy outweighed his responsibility to disclose adverse information to the government.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.g	He did not mention the Navy disciplinary actions during a January 2004 interview with a government investigator.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.h	He did not tell the investigator the reason he failed to disclose certain information in the SF-86.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

When he completed security clearance applications in November 2002 and May 2005, he did not disclose all of the criminal charges, a bankruptcy, and an employment termination.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

1.b

He deliberately did not submit the information because he felt uncomfortable sharing it with another employee and felt his privacy rights were being infringed.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

1.c

He did not list the December 2001 embezzlement charge required under question 21, or the court martial proceeding under question 25.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

1.d

He did not list the November 2000 and December 2001 criminal charges that should have been disclosed under question 26.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

1.e

He also failed to disclose the October 2002 bankruptcy under question 33.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

1.f

He acknowledged that his persistent concern for privacy outweighed his responsibility to disclose adverse information to the government.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

1.g

He did not mention the Navy disciplinary actions during a January 2004 interview with a government investigator.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

1.h

He did not tell the investigator the reason he failed to disclose certain information in the SF-86.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a–2.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a–2.b

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

—

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

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES