CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-17975.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-17975.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-17975.h1

grantedFeb 18, 2004· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 49-year-old defense contractor employee was granted a security clearance following an allegation under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged that the applicant falsified his Security Clearance Application (SCA) concerning a past firearms incident.

However, the judge determined that the applicant did not intentionally misrepresent facts. The applicant's response on the SCA was deemed accurate because he was never formally charged with a crime related to the firearms incident. Furthermore, during a subsequent Defense Security Service (DSS) interview, the applicant provided sufficient information once he fully understood the context of the questions being asked.

The judge concluded that any inaccuracies or omissions by the applicant were understandable, given the significant amount of time that had passed since the incident occurred. Based on these findings, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's response to the SCA was accurate as he was never charged with a crime related to the firearms incident.
The applicant provided sufficient information during the DSS interview once he understood the context of the question.
The judge determined that any mistakes made by the applicant were understandable given the time elapsed since the incident.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 2, 2003
Answer filedJun 4, 2003Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateFeb 18, 2004

Cite For

Accuracy of Responses on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Understanding of Context in Interviews with DSS Agents
No Intentional Misrepresentation of Facts Regarding Past Incidents

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant did not falsify his Security Clearance Application or provide false information during an interview with a Special Agent. The decision concluded that granting the security clearance is consistent with the national interest.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1	Applicant did not falsify his Security Clearance Application (SCA) as alleged in the SOR.	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	—	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DATE: February 18, 2004 In Re: --------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 02-17975 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS Applicant did not falsify his Security Clearance Application (SCA) as alleged in the SOR. Clearance is granted.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On May 2, 2003, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked. Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on June 4, 2003, and elected to have his case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case (FORM) on or about September 5, 2003. Applicant filed a response to the FORM on or about October 17, 2003. The case was assigned to me on November 4, 2003.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 49 year old employee of a defense contractor. Applicant executed an SCA on April 28, 1999. In response to Question 22, which asked, "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a firearms or explosives offense?" applicant stated "no." This response was correct. Although in 1986 he had been stopped and questioned by the police after he brandished a firearm, he was never charged with a crime. Applicant was interviewed by a Special Agent of the Defense Security Service (DSS) in November 1999. The Government alleges that applicant lied to the agent about the aforementioned brandishing incident. I have carefully reviewed the agent's "Certified Results of Interview" (Exhibit 6), applicant's statement (Exhibit 5), applicant's response to the SOR, and applicant's response to the FORM. Based on my review, I find that applicant did not intentionally misrepresent material facts about the incident. Once applicant realized what incident the agent was referring to, he provided the agent with sufficient information about it. He may have been mistaken about some of the facts, but that is understandable given the fact the incident had occurred about 13 years earlier.

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth Guidelines (divided into Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors) which must be followed by the Administrative Judge. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the following Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors are applicable: Personal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions None. Mitigating Conditions None.

CONCLUSION

Applicant did not provide false material information on the SCA he executed on April 28, 1999, or to the DSS Special Agent during the November 1999 interview.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: FOR THE APPLICANT

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant. ____________________________ Joseph Testan Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Jennifer I. Campbell, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT C. Denise Beaudoin, Esq.