CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-02891.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-02891.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02891.h1

deniedFeb 9, 2016· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A pro se applicant was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of criminal convictions, significant past-due debts, and a failure to disclose relevant information on his e-QIP.

The applicant admitted to multiple criminal convictions, including felony burglary in 2001, felony possession of marijuana in 2005, and domestic violence in 2002, which resulted in incarceration. He also admitted to theft in 2000 and burglary of a motor vehicle in 2002, both leading to probation. Additionally, he had unpaid court fines totaling about $1,000 and outstanding traffic citations from 2011 and 2013, with one resulting in an active arrest warrant.

The applicant failed to disclose these felony charges and domestic violence conviction on his e-QIP, as well as two traffic citations with fines exceeding $300, which the judge found to be willful falsifications. Furthermore, he admitted to being indebted to 13 creditors for past-due debts totaling approximately $10,281. No mitigating factors were found, leading to the conclusion that granting a security clearance was not consistent with national interest.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a long history of criminal conduct, including multiple felony convictions and ongoing probation.
Applicant failed to disclose significant criminal history and traffic citations on his e-QIP, constituting willful falsification.
Applicant has significant past-due debts totaling over $10,000, indicating financial irresponsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J1appliedCriminal Conduct
E2appliedPersonal Conduct
F19appliedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 1, 2015
Answer filedJun 16, 2015
Hearing held—Applicant represented himself.
Decision dateFeb 9, 2016

Cite For

Denial Based on Extensive Criminal History Under Guideline J
Failure to Disclose Relevant Information on E-qip Under Guideline E
Significant Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F

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 the personal conduct allegations under Guideline E. The applicant admitted to failing to disclose relevant criminal history on his e-QIP, which was deemed a willful falsification. The judge concluded that the applicant's lack of candor raised significant security concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant admits that in response to “Section 22 - Police Record,” on his December 17, 3013 e-QIP, he failed to disclose his two traffic citations from October 2011, and from March of 2013, which occurred “in the past seven (7) years.” Disclosure is required when the resulting fines were not “less than $300.” I find this to be a wilful falsification.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant admits that in response to “Section 22 . . . Police Record (EVER),” on his December 17, 3013 e-QIP, he failed to disclose his being charged with felonies in 2001 and in 2005, and with Domestic Violence in 2002. I also find this to be a wilful falsification.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—

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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns against the applicant, including significant past-due debts totaling approximately $10,281 and outstanding court fines of about $1,000. The applicant's failure to resolve these debts contributed to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant denies that he is indebted to two creditors for two past-due debts totaling about $235. $235	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant admits that he is indebted to 13 creditors for past-due debts totaling about $10,281. $10,281	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.c–3.o	13 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—
3.p	Applicant admits that he has outstanding court fines totaling about $1,000. $1,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). 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 multiple allegations of criminal conduct, including theft, felony burglary, felony possession of marijuana, burglary of a motor vehicle, and domestic violence. The applicant's long history of criminal conduct and failure to mitigate the security concerns led to the denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits that in May of 2000 he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Theft. As a result of this conviction, he was placed on probation.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program	—	—
1.b	Applicant admits that in January of 2001 he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Felony Burglary of Habitation. As a result of this conviction, he was initially sentenced to 10 years in jail; but this was suspended, and Applicant was placed on probation.	Against Applicant	Trespassing or Burglary	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program	—	—
1.c	Applicant admits that in June of 2002 he was arrested for, and subsequently found guilty of, Burglary of a Motor Vehicle. As a result of this conviction, he was initially sentenced to six months in jail; but this was suspended, and Applicant was placed on probation for nine months.	Against Applicant	Trespassing or Burglary	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program	—	—
1.d	Applicant admits that later in 2002, he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Domestic Violence. As a result of this conviction, Applicant was incarcerated for three months.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program	—	—
1.e	Applicant admits that in February of 2005, he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Felony Possession of Marijuana. As a result of this conviction, Applicant was, in part, incarcerated for one year and placed on probation until at least May 1, 2015, the date of the SOR.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program	—	—
1.f	Applicant admits that in October of 2011 he was cited for No Driver’s License, Fail to Maintain Financial Responsibility, and Following too Closely. He was fined $600, which remains unpaid; and there is an active Failure to Appear Warrant as a result of this citation.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.g	Applicant denies that in January of 2012 he was again cited for No Driver’s License, Fail to Maintain Financial Responsibility, and Following too Closely. This appears to be a duplicate of the citation alleged in Subparagraph 1.f.; and as the Government has submitted no documentation in support of this allegation, this is found for Applicant.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant admits that in March of 2013 he was cited for No Driver’s License, Fail to Maintain Financial Responsibility, and Unsafe Turn. He was fined $400, which remains unpaid.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

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. 14-02891 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Andrea M. Corrales, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

February 9, 2016

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on December 17, 2013. On May 1, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines J, E and F 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 answered the SOR in writing on June 16, 2015, and requested an Administrative Determination by an administrative judge. Department Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on August 5, 2015. Applicant did not respond to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on October 13, 2015. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in all the Subparagraphs of the SOR, without explanations, except for Subparagraphs 1.g., 3.a., and 3.o.

Guideline J - Criminal Conduct & Guideline E - Personal Conduct

1.a. and 2.a. Applicant admits that in May of 2000 he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Theft. As a result of this conviction, he was placed on probation.

1.b., 1.e. and 2.a. Applicant admits that in January of 2001 he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Felony Burglary of Habitation. As a result of this conviction, he was initially sentenced to 10 years in jail; but this was suspended, and Applicant was placed on probation. However, in February of 2005, he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Felony Possession of Marijuana. As a result of this conviction, Applicant was, in part, incarcerated for one year and placed on probation until at least May 1, 2015, the date of the SOR.

1.c., 1.d. and 2.a. Applicant admits that in June of 2002 he was arrested for, and subsequently found guilty of, Burglary of a Motor Vehicle. As a result of this conviction, he was initially sentenced to six months in jail; but this was suspended, and Applicant was placed on probation for nine months. However, later in 2002, he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Domestic Violence. As a result of this conviction, Applicant was incarcerated for three months.

1.f. and 2.a. Applicant admits that in October of 2011 he was cited for No Driver’s License, Fail to Maintain Financial Responsibility, and Following too Closely. He was fined $600, which remains unpaid; and there is an active Failure to Appear Warrant as a result of this citation.

1.g. and 2.a. Applicant denies that in January of 2012 he was again cited for No Driver’s License, Fail to Maintain Financial Responsibility, and Following too Closely. This appears to be a duplicate of the citation alleged in Subparagraph 1.f.; and as the Government has submitted no documentation in support of this allegation, this is found for Applicant.

1.h. and 2.a. Applicant admits that in March of 2013 he was cited for No Driver’s License, Fail to Maintain Financial Responsibility, and Unsafe Turn. He was fined $400, which remains unpaid.

Guideline E - Personal Conduct

2.b. Applicant admits that in response to “Section 22 - Police Record,” on his December 17, 3013 e-QIP, he failed to disclose his two traffic citations from October 2011, and from March of 2013, which occurred “in the past seven (7) years.” Disclosure is required when the resulting fines were not “less than $300.” I find this to be a wilful falsification. 2.c. Applicant admits that in response to “Section 22 . . . Police Record (EVER),” on his December 17, 3013 e-QIP, he failed to disclose his being charged with felonies in 2001 and in 2005, and with Domestic Violence in 2002. I also find this to be a wilful falsification.

Guideline F - Financial Considerations

3.a. and 3.o. Applicant denies that he is indebted to two creditors for two past- due debts totaling about $235. As they appear as past due on a July 2014 credit report (Item 5 at pages 5 and 9.); and as Applicant offers nothing further in this regard other than his denial, I find that they are past-due.

3.b.~3.n. Applicant admits that he is indebted to 13 creditors for past-due debts totaling about $10,281. As Applicant offers nothing further in this regard, I find that they are past due.

3.p. Applicant admits that he has outstanding court fines totaling about $1,000. As Applicant offers nothing further in this regard, I find that they are still outstanding.

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 AG ¶ 2(a) describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 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 ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of 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 ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance 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 adverse 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 J - Criminal Conduct

Paragraph 30 of the adjudicative guidelines sets out the security concern relating to Criminal Conduct:

Criminal activity creates 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.

The adjudicative guidelines set out certain conditions that could raise security concerns. Paragraph 31(a) provides that “a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses,@ may raise security concerns. Paragraph 31(d) provides that an “individual [who] is currently on . . . probation,” may also raise security concerns. Finally, Paragraph 31(f) provides that a “conviction in . . . state court . . ., sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and incarcerated as a result for not less than a year,” may raise security concerns. Applicant has two felony convictions, was incarcerated for a year as a result of his second felony conviction, and appears to be still on probation as a result of that second conviction. I find no countervailing mitigating condition that is applicable here. Applicant has a long history of criminal conduct, which is found against Applicant.

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 his past criminal conduct on his December 2013 e-QIP. Again, I find no countervailing mitigating condition that is applicable here. Personal Conduct is found against Applicant.

Guideline F - Financial Considerations

The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set out in Paragraph 18:

Failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.

The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,@ may raise security concerns. Applicant has significant past-due debts, which he has not yet resolved. I can find no countervailing Mitigating Condition that is applicable here. Financial Considerations are found against Applicant.

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. The record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For this reason, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his Criminal Conduct, Personal Conduct and Financial Considerations.

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 J: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant

Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 3.a: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 3.b: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 3.c: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 3.d: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 3.e: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 3.f: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 3.g: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 3.h: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 3.I: Against Applicant Subparagraph 3.j: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 3.k: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 3.l: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 3.m: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 3.n: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 3.o: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 3.p: 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