ISCR Case 01-15212.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-15212.h1

deniedFeb 21, 2002· Hon. Burt Smith· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant was found to have been untruthful about material aspects of her personal background during the clearance process, specifically providing false negative answers regarding past arrests, convictions, and delinquent debts on her security clearance application. This deliberate omission and falsification of facts raised significant concerns about her trustworthiness and reliability.

The applicant faced several financial allegations, including an eight-year delinquent hospital debt of $16,384, a $58,623 delinquent mortgage with initiated foreclosure proceedings, a $128 doctor's bill referred to collections in 1995, and a $750 delinquent gas bill from 1996. Additionally, a 1996 check for insufficient funds was referred to the sheriff for prosecution. While some financial issues were mitigated, such as the applicant paying a debt she initially did not recall to clear her record, these efforts did not overcome the other concerns.

The government also alleged that the applicant's false official statements constituted felony criminal conduct under Title 18 United States Code section 1001, further raising doubts about her trustworthiness. Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant's misrepresentations during the clearance process were a primary factor in the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant was untruthful about material aspects of her personal background during the clearance screening process.
Applicant provided false negative answers regarding past arrests, convictions, and delinquent debts on her security clearance application.
Applicant's conduct raised significant concerns about her trustworthiness and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.3appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information Concerning Relevant and Material Matters
J1appliedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

F3appliedConditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
F6appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“"the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 14, 2001
Answer filedOct 3, 2001notarized
Hearing held—Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 21, 2002

Cite For

Untruthfulness in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Related to False Statements Under Guideline J
Mitigation of Financial Issues Despite Untruthfulness

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 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;	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant and material matters to an investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official representative in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination;	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations, including violation of any written or recorded agreement made between the individual and the agency;	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.d–2.e	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 1 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

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;

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.b

Deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant and material matters to an investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official representative in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination;

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.c

A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations, including violation of any written or recorded agreement made between the individual and the agency;

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

2.d–2.e

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 1 for the applicant). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is indebted to a hospital in the amount of $16,384, and the debt is eight years' delinquent. $16,384	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant is indebted to a savings and loan association in the amount of $58,623 pertaining to a delinquent mortgage, and foreclosure proceedings have been initiated. $58,623	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant owes a doctor $128, and payment was referred to a collection agency in 1995. $128	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant is indebted to a gas supplier for $750, and the debt has been delinquent since 1996. $750	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant states that she has no recollection of services provided by the creditor, but she paid the debt to clear her record, and she attaches a receipt.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant wrote a check to a local merchant in 1996 but the check was returned for insufficient funds, and the merchant referred the check to the sheriff for prosecution as a hot check.	Against Applicant	Financial Fraud or Check Kiting	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.g–1.m	7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant is indebted to a hospital in the amount of $16,384, and the debt is eight years' delinquent.

$16,384

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.b

Applicant is indebted to a savings and loan association in the amount of $58,623 pertaining to a delinquent mortgage, and foreclosure proceedings have been initiated.

$58,623

For Applicant

Mortgage or Home Loan Debt

Denied

—

1.c

Applicant owes a doctor $128, and payment was referred to a collection agency in 1995.

$128

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.d

Applicant is indebted to a gas supplier for $750, and the debt has been delinquent since 1996.

$750

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.e

Applicant states that she has no recollection of services provided by the creditor, but she paid the debt to clear her record, and she attaches a receipt.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

1.f

Applicant wrote a check to a local merchant in 1996 but the check was returned for insufficient funds, and the merchant referred the check to the sheriff for prosecution as a hot check.

Against Applicant

Financial Fraud or Check Kiting

Admitted

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.g–1.m

7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because her false official statements constitute felony criminal conduct under Title 18 United States Code section 1001. According to the Government, Applicant's felony criminal activity causes doubt as to her trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because her false official statements constitute felony criminal conduct under Title 18 United States Code section 1001. According to the Government, Applicant's felony criminal activity causes doubt as to her trustworthiness.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

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

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES

STATEMENT OF CASE