Summary
A 38-year-old security officer was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to multiple instances of falsification on his security clearance applications (SCAs) and a history of drug involvement.
Specifically, the applicant intentionally failed to disclose his marijuana use on his March 2008 and November 2009 SCAs. Additionally, he falsified his November 2009 SCA by failing to disclose his termination from employment in October 2009. These actions followed a denial of access to classified information by another government agency in April 2008, also due to drug involvement and personal conduct.
The judge determined that the applicant's intentional falsifications undermined the integrity of the security clearance process and raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant intentionally failed to disclose his marijuana use on multiple security clearance applications.
- The applicant's history of falsifications undermined the integrity of the security clearance process.
- The applicant's lack of candor raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire.
- AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas That Is Not Sufficient for an Adverse Determination Under Any Other Single Guideline.
- AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct, or Concealment of Information About One's Conduct, That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation, Manipulation, or Duress.
- AG ¶ 17(a)rejectedThe Individual Made Prompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the Omission, Concealment, or Falsification Before Being Confronted with the Facts.The applicant did not correct his omissions until confronted with evidence.
- AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent, or It Happened Under Such Unique Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur.The applicant's falsifications were not minor and undermined the integrity of the security clearance process.
- AG ¶ 17(d)rejectedThe Individual Has Acknowledged the Behavior and Obtained Counseling to Change the Behavior or Taken Other Positive Steps to Alleviate the Stressors, Circumstances, or Factors That Caused Untrustworthy Behavior.There is no evidence of counseling or positive steps taken by the applicant.
- AG ¶ 17(e)appliedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability to Exploitation, Manipulation, or Duress.The applicant disclosed his history of marijuana use and his attempts to conceal it.
Key Rule Quoted
“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the AG.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 16, 2011
- Answer filedSep 12, 2011
- Hearing heldDec 20, 2011Postponed at applicant's request.
- Decision dateJan 9, 2012
Cite For
- Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline E Due to Falsification of Security Clearance Applications
- Lack of Candor Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility
- Whole-person Assessment in Security Clearance Determinations