ISCR Case 01-14139.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-14139.h1

deniedJul 16, 2002· Hon. Burt Smith· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old documentation specialist employed by a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a felony conviction for grand larceny, multiple misdemeanor offenses, and a history of providing false information during the clearance process.

Specifically, the applicant engaged in felony theft, allowing relatives to leave a department store with approximately $12,000 in unpaid merchandise. She also faced two additional criminal charges in 1996 and 1998 related to unlawful evasions of financial responsibility. Furthermore, the applicant failed to file federal or state income tax returns from 1990 to 1998 and failed to file state income tax returns for 1999 and 2000.

During the security clearance process, the applicant furnished false information across multiple instances and falsely stated to a Government investigator that her wages had never been garnished. The judge found that the applicant's past criminal conduct and dishonesty raised significant concerns about her trustworthiness, which were not mitigated by her claims of personal reform and current employment performance. The felony conviction for grand larceny legally precluded the granting of a security clearance under 10 U.S.C. 986.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a felony conviction for grand larceny, which legally precluded the granting of a security clearance under 10 U.S.C. 986.
The applicant admitted to providing false information during the security clearance process, undermining her credibility.
The applicant's history of financial irresponsibility and failure to meet obligations contributed to concerns about her reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J1raisedCriminal Conduct
J2raisedCriminal Conduct
J3raisedCriminal Conduct
E2raisedPersonal Conduct
E3raisedPersonal Conduct
E4raisedPersonal Conduct
F1raisedFinancial
F2raisedFinancial
F3raisedFinancial

Mitigating

E5rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant's claims of reform and current employment performance were insufficient to mitigate the disqualifying conditions.
F4rejectedFinancialWhile the applicant was enrolled in credit counseling, it did not sufficiently address her history of financial irresponsibility.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 17, 2001
Answer filedJan 11, 2002Notarized response submitted.
Hearing held—Case decided on the written record.
Decision dateJul 16, 2002

Cite For

Application of 10 U.S.C. 986 Regarding Felony Convictions and Security Clearance Eligibility
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Trustworthiness Under Guideline J
Significance of Providing False Information During the Clearance Process Under Guideline E.

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
2.a	The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subparas 2.a; 2.c.; 2.d.; 2.e.(1.); 2.g.; and 2.h. of the SOR.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.b	The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subpara. 2.b. of the SOR.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subparas 2.c.-2.e.(1) of the SOR.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.e.(1)	The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subpara. 2.e.(1) of the SOR.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e.(2)	The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subpara. 2.e.(2) of the SOR.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
2.e.(3)	The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subpara. 2.e.(3) of the SOR.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.e.(4)	The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subpara. 2.e.(4) of the SOR.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.f	The applicant told a Government investigator her wages had never been garnished as alleged in subpara. 2.f.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.g	The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subpara. 2.g. of the SOR.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.h	The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subpara. 2.h. of the SOR.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subparas 2.a; 2.c.; 2.d.; 2.e.(1.); 2.g.; and 2.h. of the SOR.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.b

The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subpara. 2.b. of the SOR.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

—

2.c

The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subparas 2.c.-2.e.(1) of the SOR.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.e.(1)

The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subpara. 2.e.(1) of the SOR.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

—

2.e.(2)

The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subpara. 2.e.(2) of the SOR.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

2.e.(3)

The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subpara. 2.e.(3) of the SOR.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.e.(4)

The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subpara. 2.e.(4) of the SOR.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.f

The applicant told a Government investigator her wages had never been garnished as alleged in subpara. 2.f.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.g

The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subpara. 2.g. of the SOR.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.h

The applicant furnished false information as alleged in subpara. 2.h. of the SOR.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she has engaged in illegal acts to generate funds and she has recurring indebtedness and financial problems.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she has engaged in illegal acts to generate funds and she has recurring indebtedness and financial problems.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant engaged in felony theft while employed as a cashier at a major department store, permitting her relatives to leave the store with about $12,000 worth of unpaid merchandise.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.b	In 1996 and 1998, Applicant was charged with two more criminal offenses related to unlawful evasions of financial responsibility.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.c	Applicant did not file federal or state income tax returns from 1990 to 1998, as required by law.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.d–1.u	18 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—
1.v	Applicant did not fail to file federal tax returns for the years 1999 and 2000, as alleged in subparagraphs 1.v. through 1.y.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Acquitted or Found Not Guilty	Denied	—	—	—
1.w	Applicant failed to file state income tax returns for the years 1999 and 2000, as alleged in subparagraphs 1.w. and 1.y.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.x–1.aa	4 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

Applicant engaged in felony theft while employed as a cashier at a major department store, permitting her relatives to leave the store with about $12,000 worth of unpaid merchandise.

Against Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Convicted

Admitted

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

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

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

1.b

In 1996 and 1998, Applicant was charged with two more criminal offenses related to unlawful evasions of financial responsibility.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Charged Not Convicted

Admitted

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

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

—

1.c

Applicant did not file federal or state income tax returns from 1990 to 1998, as required by law.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

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

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

—

1.d–1.u

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

Mixed

—

1.v

Applicant did not fail to file federal tax returns for the years 1999 and 2000, as alleged in subparagraphs 1.v. through 1.y.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Acquitted or Found Not Guilty

Denied

—

1.w

Applicant failed to file state income tax returns for the years 1999 and 2000, as alleged in subparagraphs 1.w. and 1.y.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

—

1.x–1.aa

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

Mixed

—

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