ISCR Case 01-01622.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-01622.h1

deniedJun 13, 2002· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 65-year-old security officer for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of multiple alcohol-related incidents and the intentional falsification of his security clearance application.

The applicant's record included several DUI convictions, with the most recent in March 1997, which resulted in a $500 fine, ten days in jail, and a 180-day license suspension. An arrest warrant for this incident remains outstanding due to an unpaid fine. Other DUI convictions occurred in January 1984, November 1978, and August 1978, with an acquittal in 1981 and a moving traffic violation in 1975. Additionally, the applicant was involved in a dismissed battery charge in August 1992 and a domestic dispute in March 1989 where no arrests were made.

The judge determined that the applicant's criminal conduct, particularly the recency and extent of his offenses, combined with his deliberate omission of material facts on his application, demonstrated a lack of good judgment. This intentional falsification, considered a felony violation, undermined his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of multiple DUI convictions, with the most recent occurring in 1997.
The applicant intentionally falsified material facts on his security clearance application regarding his alcohol-related offenses.
The recency and extent of the applicant's criminal conduct, including a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, undermined his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

GDC 1raisedAny Criminal Conduct.
GDC 2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses.
PCDC 2raisedThe Deliberate Omission of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire.

Mitigating

MC 2rejectedThe Problem Occurred a Number of Years Ago and There Is No Indication of a Recent Problem.The applicant's last DUI conviction was in 1997, but the judge found the overall pattern of conduct concerning.
MC 3rejectedPositive Changes in Behavior Supportive of Sobriety.The applicant's claim of sobriety since 1997 did not mitigate the concerns raised by his past conduct.

Key Rule Quoted

“When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a security clearance application, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of clearance holders.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 12, 2002
Answer filedMar 4, 2002
Hearing heldMay 15, 2002
Decision dateJun 13, 2002

Cite For

Impact of Multiple DUI Convictions on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Honesty in Security Clearance Applications
Consideration of Recency and Extent of Criminal Conduct in Clearance Decisions

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	The deliberate omission of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	specific text not stated in this decision	Unknown	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

The deliberate omission of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

3.b

specific text not stated in this decision

Unknown

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	Alcohol-related incidents.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
2.b–2.d	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

Alcohol-related incidents.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

2.b–2.d

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	In March 1997, applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). He was found guilty of the charge, fined $500.00, sentenced to ten days in jail, and his license was suspended for 180 days. A warrant for applicant's arrest was issued, and is still outstanding, because he has not yet paid the fine.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	In August 1992, applicant was working in a bar that he owned when he had to forcefully remove a customer from the bar. When he went to the police station to discuss the incident, he was informed by the police that the customer had filed a charge of Battery against him. The charge was eventually dismissed.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.c	In March 1989, applicant and his wife had a domestic dispute that turned violent. The police were called to their residence, but neither was arrested.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.d	In January 1984, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He was found guilty of the charge, fined $417.00, sentenced to two days in jail, and placed on probation for three years.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.e	In 1981, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He was acquitted of the charge.	Unknown	DUI or DWI Criminal	Acquitted or Found Not Guilty	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	In November 1978, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He was found guilty of the charge, fined $405.00, sentenced to one day in jail, and was placed on probation for two years.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.g	In August 1978, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He was found guilty of the charge and was fined $305.00.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.h	In 1975, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He was found guilty of a moving traffic violation, and fined $305.00.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

In March 1997, applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). He was found guilty of the charge, fined $500.00, sentenced to ten days in jail, and his license was suspended for 180 days. A warrant for applicant's arrest was issued, and is still outstanding, because he has not yet paid the fine.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.b

In August 1992, applicant was working in a bar that he owned when he had to forcefully remove a customer from the bar. When he went to the police station to discuss the incident, he was informed by the police that the customer had filed a charge of Battery against him. The charge was eventually dismissed.

Against Applicant

Assault or Battery

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

1.c

In March 1989, applicant and his wife had a domestic dispute that turned violent. The police were called to their residence, but neither was arrested.

Against Applicant

Domestic Violence

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

1.d

In January 1984, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He was found guilty of the charge, fined $417.00, sentenced to two days in jail, and placed on probation for three years.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.e

In 1981, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He was acquitted of the charge.

Unknown

DUI or DWI Criminal

Acquitted or Found Not Guilty

Denied

—

1.f

In November 1978, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He was found guilty of the charge, fined $405.00, sentenced to one day in jail, and was placed on probation for two years.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.g

In August 1978, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He was found guilty of the charge and was fined $305.00.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.h

In 1975, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He was found guilty of a moving traffic violation, and fined $305.00.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES