Summary
A 64-year-old administrative secretary for a defense contractor was denied retention of her security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of shoplifting and deliberate omissions on her December 2000 security clearance application (SF-86).
Specifically, the applicant was alleged to have falsified her SF-86 by failing to disclose psychiatric treatment received between 1993 and 2000, as well as her arrests and charges. She had a history of shoplifting from 1990 to 2000, including two incidents in 2000: one in October, resulting in a conviction and unsupervised probation until April 2002, and another in December, which was dismissed after she paid $50 in court costs. These actions were considered a pattern of dishonesty.
The judge found that the applicant's ongoing treatment for depression and compulsive behavior did not sufficiently demonstrate rehabilitation or prompt correction of her omissions. Her multiple acts of shoplifting while holding a clearance, coupled with the deliberate falsification of her application, raised significant security concerns, leading to the denial of her clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant engaged in multiple acts of shoplifting while holding a security clearance, including two arrests in 2000.
- She failed to disclose her psychiatric treatment and shoplifting arrests in her security clearance application, which was deemed a deliberate falsification.
- The applicant could not demonstrate successful rehabilitation or prompt correction of her omissions, which raised significant security concerns.
Conditions Referenced
- DC 1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
- DC 2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- DC 2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, Falsification or Misrepresentation of Relevant and Material Facts
- MC 3rejectedThe Individual Made Prompt, Good Faith Efforts to Correct the Falsification Before Being Confronted with the FactsThe applicant's disclosures came over eight months after her falsification, failing to meet the promptness requirement.
- MC 6rejectedThere Is Clear Evidence of RehabilitationThe applicant's ongoing treatment was insufficient to demonstrate rehabilitation.
Key Rule Quoted
“The ultimate determination of an applicant's eligibility for a security clearance depends, in large part, on the relevance and materiality of that evidence.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedNov 21, 2002
- Answer filedDec 6, 2002
- Hearing heldFeb 4, 2003
- Decision dateApr 30, 2003
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to History of Shoplifting Under Guideline J
- Failure to Disclose Relevant Information in Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
- Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation to Mitigate Security Concerns