ISCR Case 02-12234.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-12234.h1

deniedJun 17, 2003· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old defense contractor was denied a Secret security clearance due to serious past conduct and deliberate falsifications on his SF-86. The denial was based on Guidelines A (Allegiance), D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct).

The applicant's history included felony charges of child molestation and stalking, as well as illegal drug use. While he had received court-ordered counseling, there was no clinical diagnosis of sexual dysfunction or compulsive behavior. The judge found that the applicant deliberately omitted and falsified material information on his February 2001 SF-86 concerning these felony arrests, his drug use, mental health counseling, and employment history.

Despite some improvements in his lifestyle, the deliberate falsifications on the SF-86, coupled with the severe past criminal conduct, raised significant concerns about the applicant's judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability. His explanations for these omissions were deemed insufficient to mitigate the security concerns, leading to the denial of his Secret security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately falsified material information on his SF-86 regarding felony arrests, drug use, and mental health counseling.
The applicant's past criminal conduct, including child molestation and stalking, raised significant security concerns.
The applicant's explanations for omissions on his SF-86 were deemed insufficient to mitigate concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 14raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 15raisedSexual Behavior
AG ¶ 16raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17rejectedCriminal ConductThe passage of time and improvements in lifestyle were insufficient to mitigate the serious nature of the applicant's past conduct.
AG ¶ 18rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant's explanations for his omissions were not credible and did not mitigate the concerns raised.

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence.”
— DOHA ISCR Case 02-12234

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 27, 2002
Answer filedJan 13, 2003Applicant submitted an Amended Answer on March 17, 2003, and a Second Amended Answer on March 21, 2003.
Hearing heldMar 28, 2003The case was assigned on February 25, 2003.
Decision dateJun 17, 2003

Cite For

Deliberate Falsification of Information on SF-86 Under Guideline E
Serious Security Concerns Arising From Past Criminal Conduct Under Guideline D
Insufficient Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Despite Improvements in Lifestyle

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶4)	Mitigating applied (¶5)	Mitigation
1.a–1.c	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶4)

Mitigating applied (¶5)

Mitigation

1.a–1.c

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

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
2.a	The Government has established its case that Applicant engaged in criminal sexual conduct with one of his children as alleged in SOR subparagraph 2.a.	For Applicant	Criminal Sexual Conduct	Denied	(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted	(b) the behavior happened so long ago, so infrequently, or under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on curren…	—
2.b	The fact that Applicant received court-ordered counseling as part of his sentence is uncontested, however, there was no clinical diagnosis in GE 8 related to any sexual dysfunction, nor does it suggest any compulsive or addictive sexual behavior.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Sexual Behavior	Denied	(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶13)

Mitigating applied (¶14)

Mitigation

2.a

The Government has established its case that Applicant engaged in criminal sexual conduct with one of his children as alleged in SOR subparagraph 2.a.

For Applicant

Criminal Sexual Conduct

Denied

(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted

(b) the behavior happened so long ago, so infrequently, or under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on curren…

—

2.b

The fact that Applicant received court-ordered counseling as part of his sentence is uncontested, however, there was no clinical diagnosis in GE 8 related to any sexual dysfunction, nor does it suggest any compulsive or addictive sexual behavior.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Sexual Behavior

Denied

(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
4.a	Applicant deliberately omitted adverse information from a Security Clearance Questionnaire (SF-86) he submitted in February, 2001.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
4.b	Applicant deliberately falsified relevant and material information about his mental health counseling on his February 8, 2001 SF-86.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
4.c	Applicant deliberately falsified relevant and material information about his employment history on his February 8, 2001 SF-86.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
4.d	Applicant deliberately falsified relevant and material information about his felony arrests on his February 8, 2001 SF-86.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
4.e	Applicant deliberately falsified relevant and material information about his drug use on his February 8, 2001 SF-86.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—
4.f	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a

Applicant deliberately omitted adverse information from a Security Clearance Questionnaire (SF-86) he submitted in February, 2001.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

4.b

Applicant deliberately falsified relevant and material information about his mental health counseling on his February 8, 2001 SF-86.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

4.c

Applicant deliberately falsified relevant and material information about his employment history on his February 8, 2001 SF-86.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

—

4.d

Applicant deliberately falsified relevant and material information about his felony arrests on his February 8, 2001 SF-86.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

4.e

Applicant deliberately falsified relevant and material information about his drug use on his February 8, 2001 SF-86.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

4.f

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a–1.c	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a–1.c

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

For Applicant

—

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

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION