ISCR Case 07-13890.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-13890.h1

deniedOct 24, 2008· Hon. Mary E. Henry· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old laborer for a Department of Defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's history included multiple felony convictions and financial issues, despite evidence of rehabilitation and a clean record for over 15 years.

The Statement of Reasons detailed several issues. Under criminal conduct, the applicant had numerous arrests and convictions between 1986 and 1993, including multiple misdemeanor larceny by check and failure to return rental property charges. More serious offenses included felony bad check charges, multiple felony habitual traffic offender convictions resulting in jail time, and two felony perjury convictions. The applicant also had financial issues, including judgments against him in 1996 for $928, in 1998 for $519.59, and an unspecified judgment in 2002. He and his wife filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in March 2008 due to a co-signed note. Additionally, the applicant omitted material facts from his SF-86 regarding his financial record and failed to list all felony arrests, though the omission regarding his financial record was not deemed intentional.

Despite evidence of successful rehabilitation, including consistent employment, managing finances, and having his habitual traffic offender ban lifted in 1995 with no further arrests since 1993, the judge found that the nature of the applicant's past criminal behavior and felony convictions precluded a favorable decision. The multiple felony convictions, including perjury and habitual traffic offenses, were deemed significant security concerns not sufficiently mitigated by time or rehabilitation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple felony convictions, including perjury and habitual traffic offenses, which raised significant security concerns.
The applicant's criminal history included serious offenses that were not sufficiently mitigated by the passage of time or evidence of rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J.31(a)raisedCriminal Conduct
J.31(c)raisedCriminal Conduct
J.31(f)raisedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

E.16(a)rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant's omissions in his SF-86 were not found to be deliberate falsifications.
F.19(a)notedFinancial Considerations
F.19(c)notedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“"A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence."”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 23, 2008
Answer filedJul 7, 2008Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateOct 24, 2008

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Considerations of Personal Conduct and Omissions in Security Clearance Applications
Impact of Past Felony Convictions on 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
2.a	Applicant omitted material facts from his SF-86 when he answered "no" to Question 27 b about his financial record and failed to list all his felony arrests when he answered Question 23.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible
2.b	Applicant did not intentionally falsify his answer to Question 27 b.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant omitted material facts from his SF-86 when he answered "no" to Question 27 b about his financial record and failed to list all his felony arrests when he answered Question 23.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

Claimed

Explanation of Omission Credible

2.b

Applicant did not intentionally falsify his answer to Question 27 b.

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

Claimed

Explanation of Omission Credible

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	The court entered a judgment against Applicant in February 2002, which Applicant denies owing. $296	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	An unpaid medical bill, which is not listed in the Amended SOR.	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
3.c	A realty company obtained a judgment against Applicant in the amount of $519.59 on December 18, 1998. $519	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied	—	—	—
3.d	A judgment entered against Applicant on September 20, 1996 in the amount of $928. $928	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied	—	—	—
3.e	Applicant self-reported that he and his wife filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in March 2008 because he co-signed a note for another person who defaulted on the note and the creditor was seeking payment from him.	For Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Unknown	—	—	—
3.f	The above medical bill was included in the bankruptcy filing.	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

The court entered a judgment against Applicant in February 2002, which Applicant denies owing.

$296

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Denied

—

3.b

An unpaid medical bill, which is not listed in the Amended SOR.

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Unknown

—

3.c

A realty company obtained a judgment against Applicant in the amount of $519.59 on December 18, 1998.

$519

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Denied

—

3.d

A judgment entered against Applicant on September 20, 1996 in the amount of $928.

$928

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Denied

—

3.e

Applicant self-reported that he and his wife filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in March 2008 because he co-signed a note for another person who defaulted on the note and the creditor was seeking payment from him.

For Applicant

Bankruptcy Filing

Unknown

—

3.f

The above medical bill was included in the bankruptcy filing.

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Between October 1986 and April 1987, the police arrested and charged Applicant on three separate occasions with larceny by check, a misdemeanor offense. The court found him guilty and sentenced him to 30 days in jail on his first arrest. The State nolle prosequi or dismissed the two remaining charges.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation (e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions	—	—
1.b	On April 28, 1987, the police again arrested Applicant and charged him with a bad check, a misdemeanor offense, and on June 25, 1987, the police arrested and charged him with a misdemeanor offense for failure to return rental property. The court found him guilty in both cases. The record does not provide information on the sentence imposed, if any.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation (e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions	—	—
1.c	On September 28, 1987 and March 1, 1987, the police arrested and charged Applicant with bad check and making, drawing, uttering, and delivering a fraudulent check, felonies. The court found him guilty on the March 1, 1987 bad check charge. Again, the record contains no information on the sentenced imposed, if any.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation (e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions	—	—
1.d	In July 1987, the police arrested and charged Applicant as a habitual traffic offender, a felony, based on his traffic offenses, failure to pay fines, and driving on a suspended license. The court convicted him and sentenced him to five years in jail. He served 14 months in jail and the remainder of his sentence on probation. The record contains no evidence which shows the basis for the habitual traffic offender arrest, except for Applicant’s own statements about his arrests.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation (e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions	—	—
1.e	The police arrested and charged Applicant with perjury, a felony, on August 25, 1988. The court found him guilty on January 3, 1989, but the record contains no information on the sentence imposed, if any.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation (e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions	—	—
1.f	The police arrested and charged him again as a habitual traffic offender, a felony, based on traffic offenses and a separate charge for perjury on May 19, 1990. The court found him guilty and sentenced him to a total of seven years in jail. He served 14 to 18 months of his sentence.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation (e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions	—	—
1.g	The police arrested him twice more when he was driving a vehicle to work and charged him as a habitual traffic offender, a felony, on December 9, 1992 and March 23, 1993. The court sentenced him to one year in jail for each offense. He was incarcerated on January 26, 1994. He served six to eight months.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation (e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions	—	—
1.h	In 1995, Applicant petitioned the court to have the habitual traffic offense ban lifted. The court granted his request. He has a valid drivers license and no additional arrests since 1993.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	Documented No Subsequent Offenses
1.i	The record contains evidence of successful rehabilitation. Applicant works regularly and manages his finances. He paid his traffic fines and the court lifted his designation as a habitual traffic offender in 1995.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	Documented Rehabilitation Evidence
1.j	The applicant's criminal conduct occurred many years ago and the record contains evidence of successful rehabilitation. AG ¶¶ 32 (a) and (d) may be applicable.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	Documented Passage of Time
1.k	The applicant has several old felony convictions for traffic offenses and perjury when he was young, AG ¶ 32 (e) prohibits mitigation of criminal conduct unless the Director of DOHA grants a waiver based on meritorious circumstances.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.l–1.n	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Between October 1986 and April 1987, the police arrested and charged Applicant on three separate occasions with larceny by check, a misdemeanor offense. The court found him guilty and sentenced him to 30 days in jail on his first arrest. The State nolle prosequi or dismissed the two remaining charges.

Against Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Convicted

Admitted

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

(c) currently on parole or probation

(e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions

—

1.b

On April 28, 1987, the police again arrested Applicant and charged him with a bad check, a misdemeanor offense, and on June 25, 1987, the police arrested and charged him with a misdemeanor offense for failure to return rental property. The court found him guilty in both cases. The record does not provide information on the sentence imposed, if any.

Against Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Convicted

Admitted

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

(c) currently on parole or probation

(e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions

—

1.c

On September 28, 1987 and March 1, 1987, the police arrested and charged Applicant with bad check and making, drawing, uttering, and delivering a fraudulent check, felonies. The court found him guilty on the March 1, 1987 bad check charge. Again, the record contains no information on the sentenced imposed, if any.

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

(c) currently on parole or probation

(e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions

—

1.d

In July 1987, the police arrested and charged Applicant as a habitual traffic offender, a felony, based on his traffic offenses, failure to pay fines, and driving on a suspended license. The court convicted him and sentenced him to five years in jail. He served 14 months in jail and the remainder of his sentence on probation. The record contains no evidence which shows the basis for the habitual traffic offender arrest, except for Applicant’s own statements about his arrests.

Against Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Convicted

Admitted

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

(c) currently on parole or probation

(e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions

—

1.e

The police arrested and charged Applicant with perjury, a felony, on August 25, 1988. The court found him guilty on January 3, 1989, but the record contains no information on the sentence imposed, if any.

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

(c) currently on parole or probation

(e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions

—

1.f

The police arrested and charged him again as a habitual traffic offender, a felony, based on traffic offenses and a separate charge for perjury on May 19, 1990. The court found him guilty and sentenced him to a total of seven years in jail. He served 14 to 18 months of his sentence.

Against Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Convicted

Admitted

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

(c) currently on parole or probation

(e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions

—

1.g

The police arrested him twice more when he was driving a vehicle to work and charged him as a habitual traffic offender, a felony, on December 9, 1992 and March 23, 1993. The court sentenced him to one year in jail for each offense. He was incarcerated on January 26, 1994. He served six to eight months.

Against Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Convicted

Admitted

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

(c) currently on parole or probation

(e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions

—

1.h

In 1995, Applicant petitioned the court to have the habitual traffic offense ban lifted. The court granted his request. He has a valid drivers license and no additional arrests since 1993.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

Documented

No Subsequent Offenses

1.i

The record contains evidence of successful rehabilitation. Applicant works regularly and manages his finances. He paid his traffic fines and the court lifted his designation as a habitual traffic offender in 1995.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

Documented

Rehabilitation Evidence

1.j

The applicant's criminal conduct occurred many years ago and the record contains evidence of successful rehabilitation. AG ¶¶ 32 (a) and (d) may be applicable.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

Documented

Passage of Time

1.k

The applicant has several old felony convictions for traffic offenses and perjury when he was young, AG ¶ 32 (e) prohibits mitigation of criminal conduct unless the Director of DOHA grants a waiver based on meritorious circumstances.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

1.l–1.n

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

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