CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-00769.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-00769.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-00769.h1

deniedOct 16, 2014· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 69-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Iran, was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to willful falsifications concerning her employment termination.

The applicant failed to disclose her termination on two separate security forms. Specifically, in August 2013, she did not report being fired in the "Employment Record" section of her e-QIP. Later, on an October 9, 2013, "Counterintelligence-Focused Security Screening Questionnaire," she again omitted this information, stating instead that she left the position because her contract ended and she wished to spend time with her family.

The judge determined that these actions constituted willful falsification and a significant lack of candor. This raised substantial doubts about her reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant willfully falsified information regarding her employment termination on her e-QIP and CFSQ.
The applicant's lack of candor raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 2, 2014
Answer filedJul 2, 2014
Hearing heldSep 17, 2014
Decision dateOct 16, 2014

Cite For

Willful Falsification of Employment History Under Guideline E
Lack of Candor as a Disqualifying Factor for Security Clearance
Whole-person Concept in Evaluating 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 against the applicant on allegations of personal conduct under Guideline E, specifically regarding the applicant's failure to disclose her termination from employment. The judge determined that the applicant's actions constituted willful falsification, raising concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	In answer to “Section 13C - Employment Record” on her August 2013 e-QIP, Applicant failed to disclose that she was “fired” from employment as noted above.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	In answer to the “Employment” Section on her October 9, 2013 “Counterintelligence-Focused Security Screening Questionnaire” (CFSQ), Applicant again failed to disclose that she was terminated from employment as noted above, claiming she “left this position because HER contract ended and SHE wanted to spend time with HER family.”	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). 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. 14-00769 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

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

October 16, 2014

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on August 1, 2013. On June 2, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline E for Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), effective within the Department of Defense after September 1, 2006.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on June 29, 2014. She answered the SOR in writing on July 2, 2014, and requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) received the request soon thereafter, and I received the case assignment on August 13, 2014. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on August 15, 2014, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on September 17, 2014. The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 3, which were received without objection. Applicant testified on her own behalf and submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A through F, which were received without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on September 24, 2014. The record closed on September 24, 2014. Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in all the Subparagraphs of the SOR, with explanations. She also provided additional information to support her request for eligibility for a security clearance.

Guideline E - Personal Conduct

Applicant, who was born, raised and educated in Iran, is 69 years of age. (TR at page 35 line 7 to page 36 line 2.) She “immigrated to the U.S.” in 1977, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1986. (TR at page 36 lines 2–8.) She worked in real estate for about 30 years as both an agent and a broker. (TR at page 36 lines 16–24.) With the “financial meltdown” in 2008 she sought employment as a linguist, and was hired in 2009. (TR at page 37 lines 2–20.) However, her employment was terminated September 6, 2011, as she “failed to meet the contractual language requirement,” as noted on her Letter of Termination. (GX 2 at pages 1 and 4.) She initialed but refused to sign this Letter of Termination. (GX 2 at page 4.) However, she did sign her written warning and release on August 26, 2011. (GX 2 at page 8.)

1.a. In answer to “Section 13C - Employment Record” on her August 2013 e- QIP, Applicant failed to disclose that she was “fired” from employment as noted above. (TR at page 47 line 3 to page 50 line 21, and GX 1 at page 18.) I find this to be a wilful falsification.

1.b. In answer to the “Employment” Section on her October 9, 2013 “Counterintelligence-Focused Security Screening Questionnaire” (CFSQ), Applicant again failed to disclose that she was terminated from employment as noted above, claiming she “left this position because HER contract ended and SHE wanted to spend time with HER family.” (TR at page 50 line 22 to page 52 line 15, and GX 3 at page 14.) I also find this to be a wilful falsification.

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.

These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. (AG Paragraph 2.) The administrative judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. According to AG Paragraph 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.

The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG Paragraph 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.

Under Directive Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive Paragraph E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.

A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.

Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).

ANALYSIS

Guideline E - Personal Conduct

The security concern for Personal Conduct is set out in AG Paragraph 15:

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. The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under Subparagraph 16(a), “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . . or similar form” may raise security concerns. Here, Applicant was not candid about her termination on her August 2013 e- QIP. Under Subparagraph 16(b), “deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to an . . . investigator, security official . . . or other official government representative” may also raise security concerns. Here, Applicant was again not candid about her termination during her October 2003 CFSQ. I find no countervailing mitigating condition that is applicable here. Applicant’s last willful falsification was only about a year ago.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. Under AG Paragraph 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.

The Administrative Judge should also consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG Paragraph 2(a):

(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

I considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions surrounding this case. Although her former Team Leader is favorable in her comments, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to her eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. Applicant was repeatedly less than candid about her termination as a linguist. For this reason, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the whole-person concept arising from her Personal Conduct.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b. Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge