Summary
The applicant, a 45-year-old technician with a history of financial and criminal issues, successfully mitigated security concerns related to his financial obligations, past criminal conduct, and personal conduct. He reached an agreement with the IRS regarding back taxes and demonstrated rehabilitation from previous minor criminal offenses. The judge found that the applicant's omissions on security forms were not intentional and that he had disclosed significant adverse information, leading to the granting of his security clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities (2.a). The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities (2.b). Applicant has a tax lien, the amount of which he is disputing with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (1.a). Applicant owes approximately $582 for 1993 and $212 for 1994 tax liabilities (1.b). Applicant has made payments on the tax lien from 1995-98 but has been unable to resolve the matter with the IRS before his hearing (1.c).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions F.1, J.a, E.2. The judge applied mitigating conditions F.1, F.4, F.6, J.a, J.d, J.f, E.2, E.3. The decision turned on the following: The applicant reached an agreement with the IRS to pay back taxes, demonstrating a good-faith effort to resolve financial issues; The applicant's past criminal conduct was not recent and was linked to family pressures that no longer exist; The applicant's omissions on security forms were not intentional, as he disclosed other significant adverse information.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant reached an agreement with the IRS to pay back taxes, demonstrating a good-faith effort to resolve financial issues.
- The applicant's past criminal conduct was not recent and was linked to family pressures that no longer exist.
- The applicant's omissions on security forms were not intentional, as he disclosed other significant adverse information.
Conditions Referenced
- F.1raisedFinancial ConsiderationsHistory of not meeting financial obligations.
- J.araisedCriminal ConductAllegations or admissions of criminal conduct.
- E.2raisedPersonal ConductDeliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts.
- F.1appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe behavior was not recent.
- F.4appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThere are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control.
- F.6appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors.
- J.aappliedCriminal ConductThe criminal behavior was not recent.
- J.dappliedCriminal ConductThe factors leading to the violation are not likely to recur.
- J.fappliedCriminal ConductThere is clear evidence of successful rehabilitation.
- E.2appliedPersonal ConductThe falsification was an isolated incident, was not recent, and the individual has subsequently provided correct information voluntarily.
- E.3appliedPersonal ConductThe individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the falsification before being confronted with the facts.
Key Rule Quoted
“The responsibility for producing evidence initially falls on the Government to demonstrate that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's access to classified information.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedOct 15, 2001
- Answer filedNov 6, 2001Notarized response denying all allegations.
- Hearing heldFeb 26, 2002Hearing conducted at a location convenient to the applicant.
- Decision dateApr 18, 2002
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Successful Rehabilitation From Past Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
- Intentional Omissions on Security Forms Under Guideline E