Summary
A 51-year-old system administrator was denied a trustworthiness determination due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of deliberate falsification on employment applications and a prior non-judicial punishment for wrongful possession of a government computer.
Specifically, the applicant falsely claimed on an employment application, and in response to a direct question, that he attended the University of Georgia from June 1991 to June 1998 and received a Bachelor of Science degree, which was untrue. Additionally, in March 1991, while in the U.S. Air Force, he received non-judicial punishment, including a $900 pay forfeiture, for possessing a government computer. The judge found that the applicant's repeated dishonesty, including on his SF 85, constituted recent criminal conduct violating 18 U.S.C. 1001.
The denial was based on the applicant's deliberate falsification on multiple employment applications, including a recent one for the trustworthiness determination, and his prior non-judicial punishment for wrongful possession of a government computer, which indicated a pattern of criminal conduct. The applicant failed to demonstrate rehabilitation or a change in behavior following his past misconduct.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant committed deliberate falsification on multiple employment applications, including a recent application for a trustworthiness determination.
- The applicant's prior non-judicial punishment for wrongful possession of a government computer indicated a pattern of criminal conduct.
- The applicant failed to demonstrate rehabilitation or a change in behavior after his previous misconduct.
Conditions referenced
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
- E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
- E2.A5.1.3.2rejectedFalsification Was an Isolated Incident, Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information VoluntarilyThe applicant repeated the falsification on a subsequent application.
- E2.A10.1.3.1rejectedCriminal Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's recent falsification undermined the argument for mitigation.
Key rule quoted
“Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of national security.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedJul 1, 2003
- Answer filedAug 5, 2003Requested decision on the written record.
- Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
- Decision dateSep 1, 2004
Cite for
- Deliberate Falsification of Employment Applications Under Guideline E
- Impact of Prior Non-judicial Punishment on Trustworthiness Determinations Under Guideline J
- Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns Due to Repeated Misconduct.