Summary
A 29-year-old electronic technician for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from two primary issues: a history of traffic-related offenses and the falsification of his security clearance application.
Between January 2000 and July 2005, the applicant was arrested and charged multiple times for various traffic offenses, including driving on a suspended license and failing to appear in court. In his November 20, 2007, security clearance application (SF-86), the applicant deliberately omitted this arrest, charge, and conviction history when responding to question 23 regarding police records.
Although the applicant had no further arrests after 2005, the judge found his explanations for the omissions on the SF-86 to be incredible. The intentional falsification of material facts on the application, coupled with a lack of prompt or good-faith efforts to correct the record, raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant admitted to multiple arrests and convictions for traffic-related offenses, including driving on a suspended license.
- The applicant intentionally omitted relevant arrest history from his security clearance application, which constituted falsification.
- The applicant's explanations for his omissions were not credible and did not demonstrate prompt or good-faith efforts to correct the record.
Conditions Referenced
- DC ¶ 31(a)raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- DC ¶ 31(c)raisedAllegation or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged, Formally Prosecuted or Convicted
- DC ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- MC ¶ 32(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal Behavior Happened, or It Happened Under Unusual Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur and Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual’s Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good Judgment.
- MC ¶ 32(d)appliedThere Is Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation; Including but Not Limited to the Passage of Time Without Recurrence of Criminal Activity, Remorse or Restitution, Job Training or Higher Education, Good Employment Record, or Constructive Community Involvement.
- MC ¶ 17(a)rejectedThe Individual Made Prompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the Omission, Concealment, or Falsification Before Being Confronted with the Facts.The applicant's corrections were not prompt or voluntary.
Key Rule Quoted
“"The ultimate determination of an applicant's eligibility for a security clearance depends, in large part, on the relevance and materiality of that evidence."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMay 17, 2010
- Answer filedUndated
- Hearing heldOct 27, 2010
- Decision dateJan 24, 2011
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Falsification of Application Under Guideline E
- Impact of Multiple Traffic-related Offenses on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
- Consideration of Rehabilitation Efforts in the Context of Past Criminal Conduct