ISCR Case 02-12586.h2

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-12586.h2

deniedFeb 2, 2005· Hon. James A. Young· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old product support engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant faced allegations including secretly videotaping his former wife and stepdaughters in private areas between 1986 and 2001, engaging in adultery during the same period, and using marijuana from 1986 to 1998. Additionally, DOHA alleged multiple violations of a protection order, including physical altercations with his wife and stepchildren, and entering his wife's home and workplace.

A primary concern was the applicant's deliberate falsification of his security clearance application. He failed to disclose a criminal charge in October 1994 for violating an order of protection and did not disclose illegal drug use within the previous seven years. While the applicant mitigated concerns related to sexual behavior, drug involvement, and criminal conduct, the deliberate omission of the arrest was a critical factor.

The DOHA found the applicant's claim that the omission was not deliberate to be not credible, given the circumstances of the arrest. Consequently, the security clearance was denied, primarily due to the deliberate failure to disclose the arrest on his application, which raised significant concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct).

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately failed to list an arrest on his security clearance application, which is a significant concern under Guideline E.
The applicant's claim that the omission was not deliberate was deemed not credible given the circumstances surrounding the arrest.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From an SCA

Mitigating

E2.A10.1.3.1appliedCriminal Behavior Was Not Recent
E2.A10.1.3.4appliedFactors Leading to the Violation Are Not Likely to Recur
E2.A4.1.3.2appliedBehavior Occurred Some Time Ago and There Is No Evidence Such Conduct Recurred
E2.A4.1.3.4appliedAdultery No Longer Serves as a Basis for Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress

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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 7, 2003
Answer filedNov 5, 2003
Hearing held—Decided on written record
Decision dateFeb 2, 2005

Cite For

Deliberate Omission of Arrest on Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Mitigating Factors Related to Past Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Consideration of Past Behavior and Its Relevance to Current Security Clearance Eligibility

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 (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant attempted to or did secretly videotape his former wife and stepdaughters while they were in the bathroom from 1986 to August 2001.	For Applicant	Unspecified Sexual Behavior	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant attempted to or did secretly videotape his former wife in the bedroom, including during intimate sexual moments.	For Applicant	Unspecified Sexual Behavior	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant engaged in adultery between March 1986 and August 2001.	For Applicant	Unspecified Sexual Behavior	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶13)

Mitigating applied (¶14)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant attempted to or did secretly videotape his former wife and stepdaughters while they were in the bathroom from 1986 to August 2001.

For Applicant

Unspecified Sexual Behavior

Denied

—

1.b

Applicant attempted to or did secretly videotape his former wife in the bedroom, including during intimate sexual moments.

For Applicant

Unspecified Sexual Behavior

Denied

—

1.c

Applicant engaged in adultery between March 1986 and August 2001.

For Applicant

Unspecified Sexual Behavior

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
4.a	Applicant deliberately falsified his SCA by failing to disclose that he was charged with a criminal offense in October 1994 for violating an order of protection	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
4.b	Applicant deliberately falsified his SCA by failing to disclose that he had used an illegal drug in the previous seven years	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a

Applicant deliberately falsified his SCA by failing to disclose that he was charged with a criminal offense in October 1994 for violating an order of protection

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

4.b

Applicant deliberately falsified his SCA by failing to disclose that he had used an illegal drug in the previous seven years

For Applicant

Falsification Security Form

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant used marijuana from March 1986 until December 1998.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant used marijuana from March 1986 until December 1998.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Regular

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	DOHA alleged Applicant violated a state criminal statute by pushing his wife at least one time during the five year time period between March 1986 and August 2001.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	DOHA alleged Applicant violated a state statute by slapping one or both of his stepchildren during a five year period between March 1986 and August 2001.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	DOHA alleged Applicant violated the protection order by driving his motor vehicle by his wife's home.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.d	DOHA alleged Applicant violated the protection order by entering his wife's residence.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.e	DOHA alleged Applicant violated the terms and conditions of a protection order by going to her place of employment and attempting to videotape her.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	—	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.f	DOHA alleged that, in October 1991, Applicant knowingly violated the terms and conditions of a protective order by entering his wife's home.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	—	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

DOHA alleged Applicant violated a state criminal statute by pushing his wife at least one time during the five year time period between March 1986 and August 2001.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Denied

—

2.b

DOHA alleged Applicant violated a state statute by slapping one or both of his stepchildren during a five year period between March 1986 and August 2001.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Denied

—

2.c

DOHA alleged Applicant violated the protection order by driving his motor vehicle by his wife's home.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Denied

—

2.d

DOHA alleged Applicant violated the protection order by entering his wife's residence.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Denied

—

2.e

DOHA alleged Applicant violated the terms and conditions of a protection order by going to her place of employment and attempting to videotape her.

For Applicant

Domestic Violence

—

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.f

DOHA alleged that, in October 1991, Applicant knowingly violated the terms and conditions of a protective order by entering his wife's home.

For Applicant

Domestic Violence

—

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

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

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES