ISCR Case 07-12525.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-12525.h1

deniedSep 16, 2008· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old government contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to a pattern of arrests, traffic violations, and dishonesty in his security clearance applications. The applicant admitted to ten allegations, including involvement in his wife's shoplifting incidents in 1996-1997, which led to his non-judicial punishment under Article 81 of the UCMJ for conspiracy to shoplift. This punishment included a pay forfeiture, a suspended reduction in paygrade, and 45 days of restriction and extra duty.

Further issues included participating in thrill riding, such as fleeing police at high speeds, and providing false identification to an officer while driving with a suspended license. The applicant also made multiple misrepresentations on security clearance forms. In a 2005 application, he denied a prior security clearance suspension from 1997, and in a subsequent SF 86, he denied a previous denial of access to NSA SCI in 2006.

Despite being well-regarded by peers, the applicant's history of providing false information and his equivocation regarding responsibility for past conduct raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant admitted to multiple allegations of personal conduct issues, including dishonesty and traffic violations.
The applicant's history of providing false information during the security clearance process raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's equivocation regarding his responsibility for past conduct indicated a lack of accountability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedRefusal to Provide Full, Frank and Truthful Answers
AG ¶ 16(b)raisedDeliberate Omission or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information Indicating Untrustworthiness

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedMinor Offenses or Infrequent Behavior Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's pattern of conduct and recent actions did not support this condition.
AG ¶ 17(g)rejectedAssociation with Persons Involved in Criminal Activity Has CeasedThe applicant's past conduct and ongoing issues indicated continued risk.

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.”
— AG ¶ 15

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 7, 2008
Answer filedMay 5, 2008
Hearing heldJul 22, 2008
Decision dateSep 16, 2008

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Impact of Dishonesty in Security Clearance Applications
Evaluation of Questionable Judgment in the Context of Security Clearance Eligibility

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	In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the ten allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) in the SOR relating to arrests, traffic, omissions and other personal conduct issues.	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	During that period his wife shoplifted several times, both alone and with him, in private stores and with him at a Post Exchange where they were arrested in August 1997.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	He was given non-judicial punishment under Article 81 (conspiracy to shoplift) of the UCMJ. His punishment included a pay forfeiture, a suspended reduction in paygrade, and 45 days of restriction and extra duty.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	After his recovery in the summer of 2002 he joined a motorcycle club and participated in thrill riding such as driving in excess of 100 mph fleeing the police and eluding lawful stops.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	On one occasion he was stopped by police while driving without a license.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	During the police inquiry he provided false information to the officer by identifying himself with a false name since he knew he had a suspended license.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.g	Applicant submitted a security clearance application in 2005 on which he denied at Question 32, relating to denial or suspension of a security clearance, that his security clearance had ever been suspended whereas it had been in 1997 as noted above.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.h	On January 18, 2006, the National Security Agency denied access to NSA SCI for Applicant based on all of the above cited allegations.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	Subsequently, Applicant filed the SF 86 at issue in this proceeding and denied that access had ever been denied him at Question 26.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.j	In the course of the investigation for this matter, Applicant was interviewed on July 12, 2007, by an investigator and denied knowledge of his former wife’s intent to shoplift during the 1996-1997 incidents for which he received non-judicial punishment for conspiracy to shoplift.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	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

In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the ten allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) in the SOR relating to arrests, traffic, omissions and other personal conduct issues.

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Admitted

—

1.b

During that period his wife shoplifted several times, both alone and with him, in private stores and with him at a Post Exchange where they were arrested in August 1997.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.c

He was given non-judicial punishment under Article 81 (conspiracy to shoplift) of the UCMJ. His punishment included a pay forfeiture, a suspended reduction in paygrade, and 45 days of restriction and extra duty.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.d

After his recovery in the summer of 2002 he joined a motorcycle club and participated in thrill riding such as driving in excess of 100 mph fleeing the police and eluding lawful stops.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.e

On one occasion he was stopped by police while driving without a license.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.f

During the police inquiry he provided false information to the officer by identifying himself with a false name since he knew he had a suspended license.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Admitted

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

—

1.g

Applicant submitted a security clearance application in 2005 on which he denied at Question 32, relating to denial or suspension of a security clearance, that his security clearance had ever been suspended whereas it had been in 1997 as noted above.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

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

—

1.h

On January 18, 2006, the National Security Agency denied access to NSA SCI for Applicant based on all of the above cited allegations.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Admitted

—

1.i

Subsequently, Applicant filed the SF 86 at issue in this proceeding and denied that access had ever been denied him at Question 26.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

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

—

1.j

In the course of the investigation for this matter, Applicant was interviewed on July 12, 2007, by an investigator and denied knowledge of his former wife’s intent to shoplift during the 1996-1997 incidents for which he received non-judicial punishment for conspiracy to shoplift.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

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

—

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

PROCEDURAL RULINGS

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION