Summary
A 42-year-old former military officer was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to multiple issues demonstrating a lack of candor and questionable judgment. The Statement of Reasons detailed three primary allegations. First, the applicant forged his second-level supervisor’s signature on a work order form. Second, he faced military charges for two violations of Article 107, False Official Statement, and one violation of Article 134, Pandering and Prostitution. Third, the applicant knowingly made a false explanatory statement in response to Section 23a regarding the facts that led to his military adjudication.
The judge identified several disqualifying conditions, including AG ¶ 16(a), AG ¶ 16(b), and AG ¶ 16(d)(3). While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 17(a), AG ¶ 17(b), AG ¶ 17(c), and AG ¶ 17(d) were considered, they were ultimately deemed insufficient.
The denial was based on the applicant's admitted forgery of a supervisor's signature, which demonstrated a lack of integrity. Additionally, he provided misleading information about his conduct during a military tribunal, raising concerns about his truthfulness and reliability. The applicant's explanations for these actions were found to be inadequate to mitigate the security concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to forging a supervisor's signature on a work order, demonstrating a lack of integrity.
- The applicant provided misleading information about his conduct during a military tribunal, raising concerns about his truthfulness and reliability.
- The applicant's explanations for his actions were deemed insufficient to mitigate the security concerns.
Conditions referenced
- AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- AG ¶ 16(b)raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
- AG ¶ 16(d)(3)raisedCredible Adverse Information Indicating Untrustworthiness
- AG ¶ 17(a)rejectedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the OmissionThe applicant did not make prompt efforts to correct his misleading statements before being confronted.
- AG ¶ 17(b)rejectedFailure to Cooperate Caused by Inadequate AdviceThere was no evidence that the applicant's actions were caused by inadequate advice.
- AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedMinor Offense or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's conduct was not deemed minor and raised significant concerns about his reliability.
- AG ¶ 17(d)rejectedAcknowledgment of Behavior and CounselingThe applicant did not demonstrate acknowledgment of his behavior or take steps to change.
Key rule quoted
“"The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration."”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedMay 8, 2013
- Answer filedMay 22, 2013Notarized answer provided.
- Hearing heldNov 8, 2013Hearing reconvened on November 15, 2013.
- Decision dateJan 22, 2014
Cite for
- Lack of Candor Under Guideline E
- Disqualifying Conduct Involving Forgery and Misleading Statements
- Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns Related to Personal Conduct