Summary
The applicant, a 44-year-old former Air Force Senior Airman, faced security clearance denial under Guidelines E, F, and J due to financial issues and a history of criminal conduct involving wrongful appropriation. Despite mitigating factors related to her financial situation, the judge found her lack of candor regarding her court-martial and a pattern of dishonesty to be significant concerns, leading to the denial of her security clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Section 15 - Military History, of Applicant’s February 2013 e-QIP, posits the following question: “In the last 7 years, have you been subject to court martial . . . .” To which she answered “No.” Applicant testified that she miscalculated the time between her court-martial and the date she executed her e-QIP. I find this to be a wilful falsification as her court-martial was clearly less than seven years old, by about six months, when Applicant executed her e-QIP (3.a). Section 22 - Police Record, of Applicant’s February 2013 e-QIP, posits the following question: “Have you EVER been charged with any felony offense? (Include those under the Uniform Code of Military Justice [USMJ]. . . .)” To which she answered “No.” Applicant testified that she did not know whether Wrongful Appropriation was a “felony offense.” Although the UCMJ does not specifically define a “felony offense,” it is generally recognized at common law as an offense punishable by imprisonment for one year or more. Under the UCMJ, the maximum punishment for “Article 121 - wrongful appropriation” is “confinement for 6 months.” As Wrongful Appropriation is not a “felony offense,” I find no wilful falsification here (3.b). It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor A for a past-due debt in the amount of about $807 (1.a). It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor B for a past-due debt in the amount of about $8,284 (1.b). It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor C for a past-due debt in the amount of about $3,500 (1.c). It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor D for a past-due debt in the amount of about $4,041 (1.d). It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor E for a past-due debt in the amount of about $5,037 (1.e). It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor F for a past-due debt in the amount of about $2,463 (1.f). It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor E for a past-due debt in the amount of about $1,500 (1.g). In 2005, Applicant was the president of an Air Force squadron booster club. At the beginning of her six month tenure, which ran from April of 2005 to October of 2005, she began to wrongfully appropriate monies, totaling about $39,000, from the club’s bank account. On seventeen occasions during her tenure, Applicant withdrew funds to cover her own personal debts, then redeposited those funds in the club’s bank account, at a later date (2.a). In 2005, Applicant was the president of an Air Force squadron booster club. At the beginning of her six month tenure, which ran from April of 2005 to October of 2005, she began to wrongfully appropriate monies, totaling about $39,000, from the club’s bank account. On seventeen occasions during her tenure, Applicant withdrew funds to cover her own personal debts, then redeposited those funds in the club’s bank account, at a later date (2.b).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A1, J1. The judge applied mitigating conditions F20.b, F20.d, J32.a. The decision turned on the following: The applicant demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty and rule violations, particularly regarding her court-martial; The applicant's lack of candor in her e-QIP raised significant security concerns; The applicant's financial issues, while mitigated, did not outweigh the concerns raised by her criminal conduct.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty and rule violations, particularly regarding her court-martial.
- The applicant's lack of candor in her e-QIP raised significant security concerns.
- The applicant's financial issues, while mitigated, did not outweigh the concerns raised by her criminal conduct.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A1appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- J1raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- F20.bappliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control
- F20.dappliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
- J32.aappliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal Behavior Happened
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJan 15, 2015
- Answer filedFeb 9, 2015
- Hearing heldMay 29, 2015
- Decision dateSep 22, 2015
Cite For
- Pattern of Dishonesty Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility
- Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Criminal Conduct Implications Under Guideline J