ISCR Case 02-11221.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-11221.h1

deniedJun 18, 2004· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a history of seven arrests for various driving offenses between 1986 and 1996, including multiple alcohol-related incidents. The most recent arrest for driving while intoxicated in 1996 resulted in a conviction for reckless driving, a $500 fine, a suspended 90-day jail sentence, and a six-month license suspension. Other incidents included a 1995 arrest for public intoxication with a $15 fine, and two other driving offenses in 1992 and 1993 that resulted in fines of $125 and $200 respectively.

Crucially, the applicant failed to disclose three arrests on his security clearance application (SF 86), including one that resulted in a fine over $150. He only reported a single 1986 arrest for driving while intoxicated, which resulted in a $400 fine and a suspended 30-day jail sentence. The applicant admitted to having a drinking problem during the period of the offenses.

Despite some demonstrated rehabilitation, the applicant's failure to accurately report his criminal history on the SF 86 was deemed a significant concern. The explanations for these omissions were found to be insufficient and confused, indicating a lack of care in completing the application. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to disclose multiple alcohol-related arrests on his SF 86, raising concerns about his judgment and reliability.
The explanations provided for the omissions were deemed insufficient and confused, indicating a lack of care in completing the application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.1raisedGuideline E: Personal Conduct
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedGuideline E: Falsification of Application
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedGuideline J: Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

E2.A10.1.3.1appliedGuideline J: Criminal Conduct - Not Recent
E2.A10.1.3.6appliedGuideline J: Criminal Conduct - Evidence of Rehabilitation

Key Rule Quoted

“"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance." Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 31, 2003
Answer filedAug 28, 2003Applicant requested a hearing.
Hearing heldMar 18, 2004
Decision dateJun 18, 2004

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Relevant Arrests on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Consideration of Rehabilitation in the Context of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Insufficient Explanations for Omissions on Security Clearance Applications Leading to Denial of Clearance

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 failed to disclose three arrests on his security clearance application (SF 86).	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	The applicant failed to report an arrest that resulted in a fine of over $150 on his security clearance application (SF 86).	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant failed to disclose three arrests on his security clearance application (SF 86).

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.b

The applicant failed to report an arrest that resulted in a fine of over $150 on his security clearance application (SF 86).

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested and charged with various driving offenses seven times between 1986 and 1996. The most recent arrest was for driving while intoxicated but resulted in a conviction for reckless driving with a fine of $500.00, sentence to 90 days in jail, suspended, and license suspension for six months.	For Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
1.b	Two other charges in 1995 and 1996 were dismissed.	For Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Another arrest in 1995 for drunk in public resulted in a $15.00 fine.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Two other driving offenses in 1992 and 1993 resulted in fines of $125.00 and $200.00 respectively.	For Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	He listed on his SF 86 at question 24 only the single 1986 arrest for driving while intoxicated when he was found guilty as charged, fined $500.00 suspended to $400.00, sentenced to 30 days in jail suspended, and suspension of his drivers license for six months.	For Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant also failed to report at question 26 the arrest that resulted in a $200 fine when the question states that all fines over $150.00 must be reported.	For Applicant	Probation or Court Order Violation	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	He admits to having had a drinking problem during the period of the offenses.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was arrested and charged with various driving offenses seven times between 1986 and 1996. The most recent arrest was for driving while intoxicated but resulted in a conviction for reckless driving with a fine of $500.00, sentence to 90 days in jail, suspended, and license suspension for six months.

For Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Convicted

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

1.b

Two other charges in 1995 and 1996 were dismissed.

For Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Denied

—

1.c

Another arrest in 1995 for drunk in public resulted in a $15.00 fine.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Denied

—

1.d

Two other driving offenses in 1992 and 1993 resulted in fines of $125.00 and $200.00 respectively.

For Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

1.e

He listed on his SF 86 at question 24 only the single 1986 arrest for driving while intoxicated when he was found guilty as charged, fined $500.00 suspended to $400.00, sentenced to 30 days in jail suspended, and suspension of his drivers license for six months.

For Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

1.f

Applicant also failed to report at question 26 the arrest that resulted in a $200 fine when the question states that all fines over $150.00 must be reported.

For Applicant

Probation or Court Order Violation

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

1.g

He admits to having had a drinking problem during the period of the offenses.

For 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

APPEARANCES

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES