ISCR Case 10-01400.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-01400.h1

deniedSep 12, 2012· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old defense contractor with a military background was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from a history of violent conduct, including a 1980 court-martial for aggravated assault and a 1998 arrest for assault with a deadly weapon, both involving firearms. Additionally, the applicant tested positive for amphetamines in 2005 while holding a security clearance.

Further issues included repeated unauthorized personal use of a company credit card in 2006 and 2007, which involved cash withdrawals for gambling. The applicant then provided incomplete and untruthful answers on his 2009 security clearance application, failing to disclose these workplace misconduct incidents and his illegal drug use.

Financial concerns included a 1999 Chapter 7 bankruptcy, an overdue collection account of $89,292, and a mortgage foreclosure with a $231,000 deficiency balance. The applicant also gambled one to two times a week since at least 2007 and expressed an unwillingness to manage household finances due to concerns about gambling. The judge concluded that the applicant's actions demonstrated questionable judgment and unreliability, and that the security concerns had not been mitigated.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant provided incomplete and untruthful answers on his security clearance application regarding his financial misconduct and drug use.
The applicant's history of violent conduct, including a court-martial and subsequent arrests, raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's financial issues, including bankruptcy and gambling, indicated a lack of self-control and responsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire
AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information That Supports a Whole-person Assessment of Questionable Judgment, Untrustworthiness, Unreliability, Lack of Candor
AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(i)appliedCompulsive or Addictive Gambling

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 10, 2011
Answer filedApr 1, 2011
Hearing heldMay 23, 2012
Decision dateSep 12, 2012

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline E Related to Personal Conduct and Dishonesty
Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline F Related to Financial Considerations and Gambling
Whole-person Assessment in Security Clearance Determinations

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	The SOR alleges that Applicant was court-martialed in about 1980 and charged with (1) Aggravated Assault, (2) Intention of Bodily Harm, and (3) Threatening. Applicant pleaded guilty to count (2) and was sentenced to a fine and disapproved for re-enlistment. Applicant testified that on this occasion he was consuming alcohol with his friend and at some point during an apparent blackout, he shot his friend with a gun. Applicant indicated that he was court-martialed but not discharged from the military as a result of this incident.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.b	The SOR alleges that Applicant was arrested in about 1998, and charged with (1) Drawing or Exhibiting a Firearm, and (2) Carrying a Loaded Firearm in a Vehicle. Applicant was found guilty of Assault with a Deadly Weapon and sentenced to three years of probation, suspended and 30 days in jail. Applicant explained that this incident occurred when he got into an altercation with another driver over a parking space he believed the other driver had taken from him. Applicant brandished a gun that had been in his vehicle, and used it to threaten the other driver. Applicant testified that he entered a plea of no contest as a result of this arrest, and he was assigned to a work furlough program. He also was ordered to attend an anger management class.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.c	The SOR alleges that on or about December 2005, Applicant tested positive for amphetamines during a random drug test by his employer. He was suspended for three days and had to test negative for drugs before he returned to work. Applicant testified that he was surprised by the results of the test, because he contended that he only took drugs that had been prescribed to him. Applicant stated that he never tested positive after this one time.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	Drug Involvement	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.d	The SOR alleges that Applicant tested positive for amphetamines on or about December 2005, as alleged in 1.c., above, after he had been granted a Department of Defense security clearance in about February 2004. Applicant conceded that he did hold a security clearance when he tested positive for amphetamines.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	Drug Involvement	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.e	The SOR alleges that in about 2006, Applicant used a company credit card, which had been issued by his employer to be used for business only, for personal use on several occasions. The company reminded him that he was not to use the credit card for personal use.	Against Applicant	Misuse of Employer Time or Resources	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.f	The SOR alleges that in about 2007, Applicant again used his company credit card for personal use on several occasions, including withdrawing cash from ATMs and then using the money to gamble. Applicant testified that he had used the company credit card when he was not on travel, including withdrawing money from an ATM at a gambling casino, which he was aware was a violation of the company’s policy. Applicant received a letter of reprimand from the company.	Against Applicant	Misuse of Employer Time or Resources	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.g	Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA) on July 20, 2009. Question 13c asked Applicant if in the last 7 years he had been officially reprimanded, suspended or disciplined for misconduct in the workplace? Applicant answered “No.” The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to disclose that information set forth in subparagraphs 1.e. and 1.f., above.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.h	Question 23a of the SCA asked Applicant if in the last 7 years he had illegally used any controlled substance. Applicant answered “No.” The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to disclose that information set forth in subparagraph 1.c., above.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.i	Question 23b of the SCA asked Applicant if he had ever illegally used any controlled substance while possessing a security clearance. Applicant answered “No.” The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to disclose that information set forth in subparagraph 1.d., above.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.j	Question 26 of the SCA asked Applicant if in the last 7 years he had been counseled, warned, or disciplined for violating terms of agreement for a travel or credit card provided by his employer. Applicant answered, “No.” The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to disclose that information set forth in subparagraphs 1.e. and 1.f., above.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

The SOR alleges that Applicant was court-martialed in about 1980 and charged with (1) Aggravated Assault, (2) Intention of Bodily Harm, and (3) Threatening. Applicant pleaded guilty to count (2) and was sentenced to a fine and disapproved for re-enlistment. Applicant testified that on this occasion he was consuming alcohol with his friend and at some point during an apparent blackout, he shot his friend with a gun. Applicant indicated that he was court-martialed but not discharged from the military as a result of this incident.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Unknown

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

1.b

The SOR alleges that Applicant was arrested in about 1998, and charged with (1) Drawing or Exhibiting a Firearm, and (2) Carrying a Loaded Firearm in a Vehicle. Applicant was found guilty of Assault with a Deadly Weapon and sentenced to three years of probation, suspended and 30 days in jail. Applicant explained that this incident occurred when he got into an altercation with another driver over a parking space he believed the other driver had taken from him. Applicant brandished a gun that had been in his vehicle, and used it to threaten the other driver. Applicant testified that he entered a plea of no contest as a result of this arrest, and he was assigned to a work furlough program. He also was ordered to attend an anger management class.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Unknown

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

1.c

The SOR alleges that on or about December 2005, Applicant tested positive for amphetamines during a random drug test by his employer. He was suspended for three days and had to test negative for drugs before he returned to work. Applicant testified that he was surprised by the results of the test, because he contended that he only took drugs that had been prescribed to him. Applicant stated that he never tested positive after this one time.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

Drug Involvement

Unknown

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

1.d

The SOR alleges that Applicant tested positive for amphetamines on or about December 2005, as alleged in 1.c., above, after he had been granted a Department of Defense security clearance in about February 2004. Applicant conceded that he did hold a security clearance when he tested positive for amphetamines.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

Drug Involvement

Unknown

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

1.e

The SOR alleges that in about 2006, Applicant used a company credit card, which had been issued by his employer to be used for business only, for personal use on several occasions. The company reminded him that he was not to use the credit card for personal use.

Against Applicant

Misuse of Employer Time or Resources

—

Unknown

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

1.f

The SOR alleges that in about 2007, Applicant again used his company credit card for personal use on several occasions, including withdrawing cash from ATMs and then using the money to gamble. Applicant testified that he had used the company credit card when he was not on travel, including withdrawing money from an ATM at a gambling casino, which he was aware was a violation of the company’s policy. Applicant received a letter of reprimand from the company.

Against Applicant

Misuse of Employer Time or Resources

—

Unknown

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

1.g

Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA) on July 20, 2009. Question 13c asked Applicant if in the last 7 years he had been officially reprimanded, suspended or disciplined for misconduct in the workplace? Applicant answered “No.” The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to disclose that information set forth in subparagraphs 1.e. and 1.f., above.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Unknown

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

—

1.h

Question 23a of the SCA asked Applicant if in the last 7 years he had illegally used any controlled substance. Applicant answered “No.” The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to disclose that information set forth in subparagraph 1.c., above.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Unknown

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

—

1.i

Question 23b of the SCA asked Applicant if he had ever illegally used any controlled substance while possessing a security clearance. Applicant answered “No.” The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to disclose that information set forth in subparagraph 1.d., above.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Unknown

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

—

1.j

Question 26 of the SCA asked Applicant if in the last 7 years he had been counseled, warned, or disciplined for violating terms of agreement for a travel or credit card provided by his employer. Applicant answered, “No.” The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to disclose that information set forth in subparagraphs 1.e. and 1.f., above.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Unknown

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	The SOR alleges that Applicant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy on or about July 1999. The bankruptcy was discharged on or about October 1999.	Against Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.b	The SOR alleges that Applicant has an overdue debt for a collection account against Applicant in the amount of $89,292. $89,292	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.c	The SOR alleges that Applicant had a mortgage account that went into foreclosure with a deficiency balance in the amount of $231,000. $231,000	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.d	The SOR alleges that Applicant has gambled one or two times a week since at least 2007.	Against Applicant	Gambling Losses	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (i) concealing gambling losses or problems	—	—
2.e	The SOR alleges that Applicant does not want to take responsibility for his household finances because of his belief that if he has access to his wife’s bank account he may spend the money gambling.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.f	The SOR alleges that the information set forth in subparagraphs 1.e and 1.f., above, should be considered under Financial Considerations. (low confidence)	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

2.a

The SOR alleges that Applicant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy on or about July 1999. The bankruptcy was discharged on or about October 1999.

Against Applicant

Bankruptcy Filing

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.b

The SOR alleges that Applicant has an overdue debt for a collection account against Applicant in the amount of $89,292.

$89,292

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.c

The SOR alleges that Applicant had a mortgage account that went into foreclosure with a deficiency balance in the amount of $231,000.

$231,000

Against Applicant

Mortgage or Home Loan Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.d

The SOR alleges that Applicant has gambled one or two times a week since at least 2007.

Against Applicant

Gambling Losses

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(i) concealing gambling losses or problems

—

2.e

The SOR alleges that Applicant does not want to take responsibility for his household finances because of his belief that if he has access to his wife’s bank account he may spend the money gambling.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.f

The SOR alleges that the information set forth in subparagraphs 1.e and 1.f., above, should be considered under Financial Considerations. (low confidence)

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

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