Summary
A 36-year-old assembler for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of criminal charges and, more significantly, intentional falsification of information on his security clearance application.
Specifically, the applicant intentionally concealed material information from his EPSQ in April 1999, falsified answers to six questions on the form, and did not disclose a drug-related military arrest until a sworn statement in June 2000. He also failed to disclose financial judgments until confronted. This deceptive behavior was further evidenced by his admission to driving on altered tags and a suspended license in April 2001.
Earlier criminal conduct included an April 1997 arrest for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, and July 1991 charges for battery on a police officer, resisting arrest, trespassing, disturbing the peace, and criminal damage to property. Despite the passage of time since some of these incidents, the applicant's recent deceptive behavior and failure to voluntarily disclose adverse information ultimately led to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's intentional alteration of automobile tags in April 2001 demonstrated deceptive behavior.
- The applicant concealed material information from his security clearance application, undermining his trustworthiness.
- The applicant's recent criminal conduct and lack of voluntary disclosure of adverse information disqualified him from receiving a security clearance.
Conditions referenced
- JDC 1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
- JDC 2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Crimes
- EDC 2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire,...to...determine Security Eligibility or Trustworthiness....
Key rule quoted
“The desire to improve the chances of employment does not excuse the intentional concealment of relevant and material information because an applicant is obligated to be truthful during all phases of the security investigation.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedMay 31, 2002
- Answer filedJun 27, 2002Applicant elected to have the case decided on a written record.
- Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
- Decision dateSep 17, 2002
Cite for
- Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline J for Criminal Conduct
- Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline E for Personal Conduct
- Impact of Intentional Falsification on Security Clearance Eligibility