ISCR Case 05-02001.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-02001.h1

deniedJul 1, 2005· Hon. Paul J. Mason· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old administrative assistant, who had held a security clearance since 2003, was denied continued access based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from her involvement in an active homicide investigation concerning her husband, who remains a prime suspect.

During the investigation, the applicant was interviewed by detectives regarding her schedule and contact with her husband on April 7, 2003, the date of the homicide. She claimed she was with her husband at home until she left for work and that they received no calls. However, cellular telephone records for her husband disclosed three calls made to his home telephone number on April 7, 2003, at 7:20 A.M., 7:25 A.M., and 7:53 A.M.

The judge found that the applicant made false statements during the investigation, specifically regarding her whereabouts and the phone calls received. Her explanations for these discrepancies were deemed not credible, and her continued denial of receiving the phone calls undermined her reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, her security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant made false statements regarding her whereabouts and her husband's involvement in an active homicide investigation.
The applicant's explanations for discrepancies in her testimony were deemed not credible.
The applicant's continued denial of receiving phone calls on the day of the homicide undermined her reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31.araisedCriminal Conduct - A Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Included Offenses
AG ¶ 31.craisedCriminal Conduct - Allegation or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged, Formally Prosecuted or Convicted
AG ¶ 16.araisedPersonal Conduct - Deliberate Omission, Falsification of Relevant Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire, Personal History Statement, or Similar Form Used to Conduct Investigations, Determine Security Clearance Eligibility or Trustworthiness

Key Rule Quoted

“Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 27, 2007
Answer filedDec 11, 2007
Hearing heldMay 9, 2008
Decision dateSep 16, 2008

Cite For

False Statements During a Security Clearance Investigation Under Guideline E and J
Credibility Issues Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility
Active Criminal Investigations Affecting Security Clearance Decisions

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
2.a	On April 15, 2003, the investigating detective received cellular telephone (cell phone) records of Applicant’s husband disclosing that three cell phone calls were made to her husband’s home telephone number on April 7, 2003. (GE 3) The calls were made at 7:20 A.M., 7:25 A.M., and 7:53 A.M. (Id.) Applicant claimed she was with her husband at home until she left for work, and they received no calls. (Tr. 79-83)	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	The allegation reflects the investigation is 'active.' On page 51 of the transcript, the investigative detective testified that no evidence has been uncovered since the homicide to exonerate Applicant’s husband, and that her husband remains a 'prime suspect.' Then, the detective indicated he is no longer assigned to the case due to a promotion. Occasionally, as the detective noted, he looks into the case and became aware Applicant and her husband moved to another location. (Id.) When asked at the hearing by Applicant to disclose evidence that connects her husband to the homicide, the detective responded that he could not answer the question because the case is an 'active homicide investigation,' and, 'Well, - - we can’t talk about the evidence. It’s an ongoing investigation and - - and I could get - - could very well jeopardize the case.' (Tr. 63-65) I find the homicide investigation of Applicant’s husband to still be 'active,' even though more than five years have passed since GE 3 was prepared.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

On April 15, 2003, the investigating detective received cellular telephone (cell phone) records of Applicant’s husband disclosing that three cell phone calls were made to her husband’s home telephone number on April 7, 2003. (GE 3) The calls were made at 7:20 A.M., 7:25 A.M., and 7:53 A.M. (Id.) Applicant claimed she was with her husband at home until she left for work, and they received no calls. (Tr. 79-83)

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

2.b

The allegation reflects the investigation is 'active.' On page 51 of the transcript, the investigative detective testified that no evidence has been uncovered since the homicide to exonerate Applicant’s husband, and that her husband remains a 'prime suspect.' Then, the detective indicated he is no longer assigned to the case due to a promotion. Occasionally, as the detective noted, he looks into the case and became aware Applicant and her husband moved to another location. (Id.) When asked at the hearing by Applicant to disclose evidence that connects her husband to the homicide, the detective responded that he could not answer the question because the case is an 'active homicide investigation,' and, 'Well, - - we can’t talk about the evidence. It’s an ongoing investigation and - - and I could get - - could very well jeopardize the case.' (Tr. 63-65) I find the homicide investigation of Applicant’s husband to still be 'active,' even though more than five years have passed since GE 3 was prepared.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	On April 19, 2003, Applicant was interviewed by at least one detective and the testifying detective from the sheriff’s department regarding her schedule and contact with her then co-habitant (now spouse) on April 7, 2003 (Tr. 70, 98), the date of a homicide of a woman known by her co-habitant.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.b	The allegation reflects the investigation is 'active.' On page 51 of the transcript, the investigative detective testified that no evidence has been uncovered since the homicide to exonerate Applicant’s husband, and that her husband remains a 'prime suspect.'	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

On April 19, 2003, Applicant was interviewed by at least one detective and the testifying detective from the sheriff’s department regarding her schedule and contact with her then co-habitant (now spouse) on April 7, 2003 (Tr. 70, 98), the date of a homicide of a woman known by her co-habitant.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

1.b

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

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

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES