ISCR Case 08-06015.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-06015.h1

deniedSep 30, 2009· Hon. Roger C. Wesley· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old maintenance trade helper for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a history of criminal conduct, including a 1991 felony conviction for drug possession with intent, which resulted in a 16-year sentence (six years suspended) and a $100 fine. Additional criminal charges in 1998 for felony cocaine possession and a misdemeanor for driving on a suspended license were nolle prossed, and a 2000 trespassing charge was dismissed.

The applicant also faced significant financial issues, including eight delinquent debts exceeding $3,000, $10,176 in back child support, and an unsatisfied adverse judgment from April 2004 for $385 in child support arrearage. Furthermore, the applicant was found to have falsified his January 2007 security clearance application (e-QIP) by omitting his 1998-2000 criminal charges and his delinquent debts.

The judge determined that the applicant's felony drug distribution conviction and pattern of criminal conduct raised security concerns. The omissions on his security clearance application were considered deliberate or made with reckless disregard for the truth, demonstrating a lack of candor. The financial issues, particularly the substantial child support arrears, indicated poor judgment and reliability, ultimately leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a felony drug distribution conviction and a pattern of criminal conduct that raised security concerns.
The applicant's omissions on his security clearance application were deemed deliberate or made with reckless disregard for the truth.
The applicant's financial issues, including significant child support arrears and other delinquent debts, indicated poor judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J1raisedCriminal Conduct Raises Questions About an Individual's Judgment, Reliability, and Trustworthiness.
E2raisedFailure to Provide Truthful and Candid Answers During the Security Clearance Process.
F1raisedFailure or Inability to Live Within One’s Means and Satisfy Debts May Indicate Poor Self-control.

Key Rule Quoted

“A decision to grant or continue an applicant's security clearance may be made only upon a threshold finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 24, 2009
Answer filedMar 4, 2009
Hearing heldJun 29, 2009
Decision dateSep 30, 2009

Cite For

Criminal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline J
Omissions on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Financial Considerations Impacting Security Clearance Under Guideline F

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	Falsified his January 2007 e-QIP by omitting his 1998-2000 criminal charges and his debts over 180 days and 90 days delinquent, respectively.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.b–2.e	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Falsified his January 2007 e-QIP by omitting his 1998-2000 criminal charges and his debts over 180 days and 90 days delinquent, respectively.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.b–2.e

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

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant accrued eight delinquent debts exceeding $3,000 $3,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant has back child support of $10,176 $10,176	Against Applicant	Child Support Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
3.c	Applicant has an unsatisfied adverse judgment that was entered in April 2004 for child support arrearage of $385 $385	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	—	—	—
3.d–3.i	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant accrued eight delinquent debts exceeding $3,000

$3,000

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

3.b

Applicant has back child support of $10,176

$10,176

Against Applicant

Child Support Debt

Admitted

—

3.c

Applicant has an unsatisfied adverse judgment that was entered in April 2004 for child support arrearage of $385

$385

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Admitted

—

3.d–3.i

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

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	was charged in April 1991 with four counts of cocaine distribution near school property and four counts of possession of controlled drugs with intent (both felonies), convicted of drug possession with intent (with the remaining charges nolle prossed), sentenced to 16 years of imprisonment (six years suspended) and fined $100	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.b	was charged in December 1998 with possession of cocaine (a felony) and driving on a suspended operator’s license (a misdemeanor), with the charges nolle prossed	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	was charged in August 2000 with trespassing (dismissed)	For Applicant	Trespassing or Burglary	Acquitted or Found Not Guilty	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	falsified his January 2007 security clearance application (e-QIP) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a felony)	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

was charged in April 1991 with four counts of cocaine distribution near school property and four counts of possession of controlled drugs with intent (both felonies), convicted of drug possession with intent (with the remaining charges nolle prossed), sentenced to 16 years of imprisonment (six years suspended) and fined $100

Against Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Convicted

Admitted

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

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

1.b

was charged in December 1998 with possession of cocaine (a felony) and driving on a suspended operator’s license (a misdemeanor), with the charges nolle prossed

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

—

1.c

was charged in August 2000 with trespassing (dismissed)

For Applicant

Trespassing or Burglary

Acquitted or Found Not Guilty

Admitted

—

1.d

falsified his January 2007 security clearance application (e-QIP) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a felony)

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