Summary
A 58-year-old instructor for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a 1999 embezzlement conviction and the applicant's provision of false information during the security clearance process.
Specifically, the applicant was arrested, pled guilty to, and was convicted of embezzlement in 1999 for taking funds from her employer between 1994 and 1996. Additionally, the applicant provided false information on her security clearance application and to a security investigator.
The judge determined that the applicant's admitted embezzlement raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness. Furthermore, providing false information undermined her credibility. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's past conduct and lack of candor did not support her eligibility for a security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant admitted to embezzlement, which raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.
- The applicant provided false information on her security clearance application and during the investigation, undermining her credibility.
- The judge found that the applicant's past conduct and lack of candor did not support her eligibility for a security clearance.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 31(a)raisedCriminal Conduct - A Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- AG ¶ 31(c)raisedCriminal Conduct - Allegation or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged, Formally Prosecuted or Convicted
- AG ¶ 16(a)raisedPersonal Conduct - Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- AG ¶ 16(b)raisedPersonal Conduct - Deliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
- AG ¶ 32(a)rejectedCriminal Conduct - so Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal Behavior Happened, or It Happened Under Such Unusual Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to RecurThe unusual circumstances did not justify or explain the applicant's actions.
- AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedCriminal Conduct - Evidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant's rehabilitation was insufficient to overcome the negative impact of her embezzlement.
- AG ¶ 17(a)rejectedPersonal Conduct - Prompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the OmissionThe applicant did not demonstrate good faith in correcting her omissions.
- AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedPersonal Conduct - the Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so InfrequentThe act of embezzlement itself is serious and raises significant concerns.
- AG ¶ 17(d)rejectedPersonal Conduct - Acknowledgment of the Behavior and Obtaining CounselingThe applicant's minimization of her actions undermined her credibility.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 31, 2011
- Answer filedSep 24, 2011
- Hearing heldMar 21, 2012
- Decision dateMay 9, 2012
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Past Criminal Conduct and Lack of Candor During the Application Process
- Impact of Embezzlement on Trustworthiness and Reliability Under Guideline J
- Importance of Truthful Disclosure in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E