CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-03055.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-03055.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-03055.h1

deniedFeb 20, 2014· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old electronics technician was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had an extensive 25-year history of criminal activity and police involvement, beginning in 1986 with a felony charge for Possession of a Controlled Substance. Subsequent offenses included Petty Theft in 1990, Vandalism in 1992, and Obtaining a Utility Service Without Paying in 1994.

His record also detailed multiple arrests and charges for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in 2001, Obstructing a Police Officer and Domestic Dispute in 2001 and 2002, and further Domestic Disputes and Reckless Driving in 2006 and 2007. In 2007, he faced charges for Attempted Assault With a Deadly Weapon and Battery on a Non-Cohabitant Spouse. His criminal history continued into 2011 with incidents of Domestic Violence and Spousal Battery.

Beyond his criminal record, the applicant was found to have been untruthful on his security clearance application. He failed to disclose the full extent of his police record, falsely answered "No" to questions regarding felony charges and offenses involving alcohol or drugs, and deliberately concealed material information from the Government. The judge concluded that this extensive criminal history and dishonesty warranted the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a twenty-five year history of criminal activity, including multiple offenses that demonstrate poor judgment and unreliability.
Applicant was untruthful on his security clearance application, deliberately concealing material information from the Government.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J 31(a)raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Offenses
J 31(c)raisedAllegation or Admission of Criminal Conduct
E 16(a)raisedA Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
E 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance is a privilege, not a right.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 9, 2013
Answer filedOct 28, 2013
Hearing heldJan 24, 2014
Decision dateFeb 20, 2014

Cite For

Denial Based on Extensive Criminal History Under Guideline J
Dishonesty in Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant engaged in personal conduct that raised significant security concerns, including a pattern of dishonesty and lack of candor in his security clearance application. The applicant's failure to disclose his extensive criminal history and other relevant information led to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed to disclose the full extent of his police record discussed above.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	Applicant answered, 'No,' to the question regarding ever being charged with any felony offense, which was a false statement.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.c	Applicant answered, 'No,' to the question regarding ever being charged with an offense involving alcohol or drugs, which was a false statement.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.d	Applicant was untruthful concerning his police record on his security clearance application and deliberately concealed material information from the Government.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline J, citing a long history of criminal conduct including domestic violence, DUI, and other offenses. The applicant's pattern of behavior raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a twenty-five year history of criminal activity and police involvement including Domestic Violence, Driving Under the Influence (DUI), Reckless Driving, Vandalism and Drugs.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Conduct No Charge	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.b	In December 1986, Applicant was charged with felony Possession of a Controlled Substance.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.c	In July 1990, at the young age of 18, Applicant was charged with Petty Theft.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.d	In August 1992, at the age of 20, Applicant was charged with Vandalism.	Against Applicant	Vandalism or Property Damage	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.e	In November 1994, Applicant was charged with Obtaining a Utility Service Without Paying.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.f	In May 2001, Applicant was arrested for DUI.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.g	In October 2001, Applicant was arrested for (1) Obstructing a Police Officer, and (2) Domestic Dispute.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Arrested Not Charged	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.h	In 2002, Applicant was arrested for Domestic Disturbance.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Arrested Not Charged	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.i	In December 2006, Applicant was charged with (1) Domestic Dispute, and (2) Reckless Driving.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.j	In January 2007, Applicant was charged with Attempted Assault With a Deadly Weapon.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Arrested Not Charged	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.k	In February 2007, Applicant was charged with Reckless Driving.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Conduct No Charge	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.l	In February and again in December 2007, the police were called out to Applicant’s residence for Battery on a Non-Cohabitant Spouse.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Conduct No Charge	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.m	In January 2011, the police were called out to the Applicant’s house for Domestic Violence.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Conduct No Charge	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.n	In April 2011, Applicant was arrested and charged with Spousal Battery.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
2.a–2.d	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) --------------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 12–03055 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Jeff Nagel, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

February 20, 2014

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (E-QIP) on November 7, 2011. (Government Exhibit 1.) On October 9, 2013, the Department of Defense (DoD) pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as amended), issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines J and E for Applicant. The SOR set forth the reasons why DoD adjudicators could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked.

Applicant responded to the SOR on October 28, 2013, and he requested a hearing before an administrative judge. This case was assigned to the undersigned on December 30, 2013. A notice of hearing was issued on January 6, 2014, and the hearing was scheduled for January 24, 2014. At the hearing the Government presented three exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 3, which were admitted without objection. Applicant presented no exhibits, but did testify on his own behalf. The record remained open until close of business on February 3, 2014, to allow Applicant to submit additional documentation. He submitted six Post-Hearing Exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits 1 through 6, which were admitted without objection. The official transcript (Tr.) was received on February 3, 2014. Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is 41 years old, in the process of divorce, and has three children. He has a General Education Diploma (GED). He is employed by a defense contractor as an Electronics Technician and is applying for a security clearance in connection with his employment.

Paragraph 1 (Guideline J - Criminal Conduct). The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he engaged in Criminal Conduct.

Applicant has a twenty-five year history of criminal activity and police involvement including Domestic Violence, Driving Under the Influence (DUI), Reckless Driving, Vandalism and Drugs. Applicant explained that he grew up in a small town community. As a juvenile and a young adult he got into trouble frequently. Then about fourteen years ago, he married a woman who enjoyed drinking, fighting and bickering. Although their relationship was toxic, Applicant tried to hold the marriage together for the sake of their three children. She made it clear to Applicant that she would do everything she could to jeopardize his employment because she does not like his job. Applicant is currently in the process of divorce.

Applicant has been working with the Government since December 2002, and with his current employer since January 2007. He currently holds a Top Secret security clearance that he received in 2003.

In December 1986, Applicant was charged with felony Possession of a Controlled Substance. Applicant stated that at the young age of 15, he and his twin sister were regular users of methamphetamine. His parents were going through a divorce, and he and his sister lived with their father who was never around. Applicant had in his possession about $20 worth of methamphetamine. Applicant pled guilty and was sentenced to six months in juvenile detention and three years probation. Applicant was given additional time for violating his probation.

In July 1990, at the young age of 18, Applicant was charged with Petty Theft. He explained that due to peer pressure from his friends who wanted to party, he stole a 12- pack of beer from the store. Applicant pled guilty and was sentenced to five days in jail and three years probation. (Tr. pp. 27-29.)

In August 1992, at the age of 20, Applicant was charged with Vandalism. He explained that he caught his girlfriend with another man in their apartment. Applicant was so mad he broke the windshield of her truck. (Tr.p. 29.) Applicant pled guilty and was sentenced to six days in jail and three years probation.

Two years later, in November 1994, Applicant was charged with Obtaining a Utility Service Without Paying. He testified that since he had no utilities in his apartment, he plugged in an extension cord to the laundry room in his apartment building that ran to his apartment. The landlord found the extension cord and reported him to the police. Applicant pled guilty and was sentenced to 20 days in jail and three years probation.

In May 2001, Applicant was arrested for DUI. Applicant stated that he had been drinking alcohol at a friend’s house. His friends had taken his car keys to prevent him from driving. His pregnant wife wanted him home so he started his car with a spoon. He got three or four blocks away, and crashed the car into a block wall. (Tr. p. 36.) He totaled the car. He was taken to the hospital with cuts, scrapes, and bruises, and a blood alcohol level of .23%. He pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to two days in jail, a $1,500 fine, and five years probation. He was also required to attend an alcohol awareness class once a week for six months. (Tr.p . 38.)

In October 2001, Applicant was arrested for (1) Obstructing a Police Officer, and (2) Domestic Dispute. Applicant’s wife woke him up in the middle of the night and started a fight with the Applicant. She then left the house. A neighbor called the police. When the police arrived, Applicant refused to let them in the house. Applicant was arrested and spent the night in jail, but no charges were filed by the District Attorney. (Tr.p. 40.)

In 2002, Applicant was arrested for Domestic Disturbance. Applicant has no recollection of the arrest. (Tr. pp. 42-43.) No charges were filed by the District Attorney.

In December 2006, Applicant was charged with (1) Domestic Dispute, and (2) Reckless Driving. Applicant explained that his wife had quit her job at a bar and had gone there to pick up her last paycheck. After about four hours, Applicant decided to drive down to the bar to see what was going on, as she would not answer his telephone calls. As he was pulling in, Applicant’s wife was leaving with another man. Applicant followed them in his car and crashed into them. (Tr. p. 44.) The charge was reduced to Reckless Driving. Applicant pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to 18 months probation. Following this incident, Applicant and his wife separated.

In January 2007, Applicant was charged with Attempted Assault With a Deadly Weapon. Applicant has no recollection of this charge. He believes that it may be related to the incident in December 2006 for Reckless Driving discussed above. No charges were filed by the District Attorney.

In February 2007, Applicant was charged with Reckless Driving. Applicant explained that this charge involved the incident that occurred in December 2006, discussed above. In February and again in December 2007, the police were called out to Applicant’s residence for Battery on a Non-Cohabitant Spouse. At the time, Applicant and his wife were separated and living apart. On each occasion, she came over to Applicant’s apartment and started a fight with him. Both incidents involved screaming and shouting as well as physical fighting, shoving and pushing, and destruction of personal property. At some point, she broke Applicant’s nose. She broke all of the Applicant’s deceased grandmother’s china. She also chopped up his brand new couches with a knife. Applicant described his wife as a very violent person. (Tr. p. 51.)

In January 2011, the police were called out to the Applicant’s house for Domestic Violence. At this point, Applicant and his wife had reconciled and were living together again. Applicant testified that he and his wife had been consuming alcohol when they got into a fight. (Tr. pp. 53-54.)

In April 2011, Applicant was arrested and charged with Spousal Battery. His 12 year old son called the police to report his parents fighting. Applicant was arrested and taken to jail.

Since his last arrest in April 2011, Applicant believes that there were two more occasions where the police were called out to his home for a domestic disturbance. On neither occasion were the Applicant or his wife arrested or charged for this misconduct. (Tr. p. 56.) Applicant decided in September 2013, to leave his wife for good and moved out of the apartment.

Applicant provides his wife with child support in the amount of $600 monthly. In his free time he spends time with his children and takes them to the park to play. Two of the three children are Applicant’s biological children. Although the youngest son is not the Applicant’s child, Applicant loves, nurtures and provides financial support to him as well.

Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct). The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he has engaged in conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.

Applicant completed a security clearance application dated November 7, 2011. (Government Exhibit 1.) Question 22(a) asked him if, in the past seven years, he has been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against him? Question 22(b) asked him if, in the past seven years, he has been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official? Question 22(c) asked him if, in the past seven years, he was charged, convicted, or sentenced of a crime in any court? Applicant answered, “Yes,” and reported only a June 2011 arrest for Domestic Disturbance. Applicant failed to disclose the full extent of his police record discussed above.

Question 22, under Police Record - of the same questionnaire asked Applicant if he has ever been charged with any felony offense? Applicant answered, “No.” (Government Exhibit 1.) This was a false statement. Applicant failed to reveal his felony charge for Possession of Methamphetamine in 1986.

Question 22, under Police Record - of the same questionnaire asked Applicant if he has ever been charged with an offense involving alcohol or drugs? Applicant answered, “No.” (Government Exhibit 1.) This was a false statement. Applicant failed to reveal his DUI in May 2001 and his felony charge for Possession of Methamphetamine in 1986.

Applicant denies that he deliberately attempted to conceal information or mislead the Government investigation when he answered as he did to the questions regarding his police record on his security clearance questionnaire. He states that if he made mistakes, it was not intentional. (Tr. pp. 64-66.) I do not find this explanation convincing. The questions were simple, not complicated, and he should have answered them correctly. Since he was untruthful, the only rational explanation for this can be that he did not want the Government to know about them.

A declaration from the Applicant’s friend, who has known him for the past six years, states that he has witnessed Applicant’s wife’s volatile drunken behavior and that he himself has been assaulted with a deadly weapon by Applicant’s wife. In his opinion, Applicant is a man of patience who has tried to keep the family together despite his wife’s destructive behavior. He describes Applicant as a hard worker, honest person, and a good father who deserves a medal for what he has put up with. Applicant is said to be a man of integrity and honor who should be granted a security clearance. (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit 1.)

Performance Appraisals of the Applicant for the period from May 2008 through April 2013 are favorable in every respect and reflect that he either “exceeds expectations” or “meets expectations” in every category. (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit 2.)

Applicant has received several promotions from his employer for his fine work performance and professionalism on the job. (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits 3 and 4.)

Letters from the Applicant’s Security Facility Officer, and a Field Engineer, collectively indicate that he is dependable, honest, and hard working and that he is not the type of person to betray or endanger the national security of this country for any reason. Applicant is considered to be a major contributor to the company’s success. He is described as having a positive attitude and a strong sense of team work. He is highly recommended for a security clearance. (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits 5 and 6.)

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the Directive set forth adjudication policies divided into "Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors." The following Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:

Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

30. The Concern. Criminal activity creates a doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations.

Conditions that could raise a security concern:

31.(a) a single serious crime or multiple offenses; and

31.(c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted.

Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:

None.

Guideline E (Personal Conduct)

15. The Concern. Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.

Conditions that could raise a security concern:

16.(a) a deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; and

16.(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, questionable judgment, unwillingness to comply with rules an regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:

None.

In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19, in evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the administrative judge should consider the following general factors:

a. The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;

b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation;

c. The frequency and recency of the conduct;

d. The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;

e. The extent to which participation is voluntary;

f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes;

g. The motivation for the conduct;

h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and

i. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal characteristics and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question, posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the national interest” to grant an applicant’s request for access to classified information.

The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk. Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines. The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person concept. Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The administrative judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. The judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature. Finally, as emphasized by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”

CONCLUSION

In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week. The Government is therefore appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an applicant for clearance may be involved in criminal conduct and dishonesty that demonstrates poor judgment or unreliability.

It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the applicant’s conduct and the continued holding of a security clearance. If such a case has been established, the burden then shifts to the applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation, which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case. The applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.

In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that Applicant has engaged in criminal conduct (Guideline J), and dishonesty (Guideline E). The totality of this evidence indicates poor judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of Applicant. Because of the scope and nature of Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or connection with his security clearance eligibility. Considering all of the evidence, Applicant has not introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the Government's case under Guidelines J and E of the SOR.

It is noted that under the circumstances, Applicant has been a good father to his children and has tried to keep his family together as best he could. Despite this, Applicant’s twenty-five year history of criminal activity and police involvement beginning in 1986, and continuing until at least April 2011, has not been mitigated. This behavior shows a pattern of conduct reflecting poor judgment and unreliability. Under Guideline J, Criminal Conduct, Disqualifying Conditions 31.(a) a serious crime or multiple lesser offenses, and 31.(c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted apply. None of the mitigating conditions are applicable. Applicant’s criminal activity, regardless of whether he was arrested, charged or not, shows an on going pattern of behavior that started as a juvenile and has continued well into his adulthood. Given this long dysfunctional history that has been established as part of a lifestyle pattern, it is likely to continue and recur, and casts doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. Based upon this exhaustive criminal record, there is insufficient evidence of successful rehabilitation at this time. Accordingly, I find against Applicant under Guideline J, Criminal Conduct.

Equally as troubling in this case is the fact that Applicant was untruthful concerning his police record on his security clearance application. He deliberately concealed material information from the Government. There is no excuse for this misconduct. The Government relies on the representations of its defense contractors and must be able to trust them in every instance. Applicant made no prompt, good-faith effort to correct his mistakes. Applicant cannot at this time be deemed sufficiently trustworthy. In fact, he has demonstrated unreliability and untrustworthiness. Under the particular facts of this case, his poor personal conduct is considered a significant security risk, which prohibits a favorable determination in this case.

Under Guideline E, Personal Conduct, Disqualifying Conditions 16.(a) a deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities, and 16.(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, questionable judgment, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information apply. None of the mitigating conditions are applicable. Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline E, Personal Conduct.

I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. Applicant is a 41 year old man who has made some very poor choices in his life. He has recently realized that he must do something to turn his life around, and so he has left his wife once and for all, and plans to divorce her. His long history of misconduct, however, are future indicators of poor judgment and unreliability that preclude him from security clearance eligibility at this time.

Under the particular facts of this case, the totality of the conduct set forth under all of the guidelines viewed as a whole supports a whole-person assessment of poor judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, a lack of candor, an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard classified information.

A security clearance is a privilege, not a right. In order to meet the qualifications for access to classified information, it must determined that the applicant is and has been sufficiently trustworthy on the job and in his everyday life to adequately protect the Government’s national interest. Overall, based upon the seriousness of the conduct outlined here, this Applicant has demonstrated that he is not trustworthy, and he does not meet the eligibility requirements for access to classified information. Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct.)

On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has failed to overcome the Government's case opposing his request for a security clearance. Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the SOR.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:

Paragraph 1: Against Applicant. Subpara. 1.a.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 1.b.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 1.c.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 1.d.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 1.e.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 1.f.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 1.g.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 1.h.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 1.i.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 1.j.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 1.k.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 1.l.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 1.m.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 1.n.: Against Applicant.

Paragraph 2: Against Applicant. Subpara. 2.a.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 2.b.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 2.c.: Against Applicant. Subpara. 2.d.: Against Applicant.

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.

Darlene Lokey Anderson Administrative Judge