CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 01-03906.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 01-03906.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-03906.h1

deniedJun 25, 2002· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old former Navy service member was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's intentional falsification of his Security Clearance Application (SCA) concerning past bankruptcy filings. This deliberate omission of material facts from a personnel security questionnaire, specifically the falsification of information on the SCA, was identified as a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

The judge determined that the applicant's dishonest conduct was both recent and extensive, raising significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. While one mitigating condition was applied, the disqualifying conditions related to deliberate omissions and criminal conduct were not overcome.

Ultimately, the recency and extent of the applicant's dishonest actions prevented a finding that granting a security clearance would be consistent with the national interest, leading to the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant intentionally falsified material facts on his Security Clearance Application regarding bankruptcy filings.
The recency and extent of the applicant's dishonest conduct precluded a finding that granting clearance was consistent with national interest.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire.
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses.

Mitigating

E2.A10.1.3.2rejectedThe Crime Was an Isolated Incident.The judge found the applicant's dishonest conduct to be recent and extensive.

Key Rule Quoted

“The falsification of material facts on the SCA constitutes a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 9, 2001
Answer filedNov 29, 2001Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateJun 25, 2002

Cite For

Intentional Falsification of Information on a Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Impact of Recent Dishonest Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Absence of Mitigating Factors in Cases of Intentional Dishonesty

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 personal conduct allegations, determining that he intentionally falsified material facts on a Security Clearance Application (SCA) regarding his bankruptcy history. The applicant's dishonest conduct was deemed to reflect adversely on his judgment and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1	The deliberate omission of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2	A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

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 J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on both allegations related to criminal conduct, specifically the intentional falsification of material facts on a Security Clearance Application. The applicant's dishonest conduct was deemed to reflect adversely on his judgment and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1	The deliberate omission of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2	The falsification of material facts on the SCA constitutes a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	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

DATE: June 25, 2002 In Re: -------------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 01-03906 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS The recency and extent of applicant's dishonest and criminal conduct precludes a finding that it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On November 9, 2001, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked. Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on November 29, 2001, and elected to have his case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case on or about February 15, 2002. Applicant did not file a response to the Government's written case. The case was assigned to me on April 1, 2002.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is forty-two years of age. He served twenty years in the United States Navy. Applicant completed and executed a Security Clearance Application (SCA) on March 5, 1999. In response to Question 33 of the SCA which asked, "In the last 7 years, have you ever filed a petition under any chapter of the bankruptcy code (to include Chapter 13)? applicant stated "no." This response was false because applicant had filed a bankruptcy petition in March 1993. (1) Applicant admits that he intentionally provided the false information. In a signed, sworn statement he gave to the Defense Security Service (DSS) in February 2000, and in his response to the SOR, he provided essentially the same explanation for his dishonest and criminal conduct, (2) to wit: (1) he was embarrassed by the bankruptcies and he did not want his company to know his personal business, (2) he did not realize the significance of the SCA, and (3) he did not read the certification explaining the sanctions for a false statement prior to signing the SCA.

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth Guidelines (divided into Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors) which must be followed by the Administrative Judge. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the following Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors are applicable: Personal Conduct Disqualifying Factors 1. E2.A5.1.2.2: The deliberate omission of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire. Mitigating Factors None. Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Factors 1. E2.A10.1.2.2: A single serious crime or multiple lessor offenses. Mitigating Factors 1. E2.A10.1.3.2: The crime was an isolated incident.

CONCLUSION

The evidence establishes that applicant intentionally falsified material facts on an SCA he executed in March 1999 when he denied that he had filed any bankruptcy petitions during the previous 7 years. This dishonest and criminal conduct reflects adversely on applicant's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. Although applicant sincerely regrets his dishonest and criminal conduct, the recency and extent of this conduct, together with the absence of any evidence from independent sources (e.g., friends, family, coworkers, supervisors) that would suggest applicant is now a reliable and trustworthy individual, precludes a finding at the present time that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. For this reason, Guidelines E and J are found against applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT PARAGRAPH 2: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant. ____________________________ Joseph Testan Administrative Judge 1. The Government alleges that applicant's response was false for an additional reason; namely, because he had filed a different bankruptcy petition on February 7, 1992. This allegation must fail, however, because the date this petition was filed was more than 7 years prior to the date he executed the SCA. 2. The falsification of material facts on the SCA constitutes a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

FOOTNOTES

01-03906.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Melvin A. Howry, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/01-03906.h1.html[7/2/2021 2:15:23 PM] 01-03906.h1