CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-17881.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-17881.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-17881.h1

deniedNov 26, 2003· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 54-year-old access control officer for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the intentional omission of a child from his electronic security clearance application (ESCA). This omission was identified as a disqualifying condition under E2.A5.1.2.2 and E2.A5.1.2.4.

The applicant's Statement of Reasons specifically cited the intentional omission of the child's name from the ESCA. Although the applicant had previously disclosed the affair that resulted in the child to family members, he provided contradictory explanations for the omission on his official application.

Ultimately, the clearance was denied because the applicant intentionally omitted material information from the ESCA and subsequently offered contradictory explanations, which undermined his credibility. This conduct raised significant concerns regarding his judgment and trustworthiness, leading to the determination that he did not meet the reliability standards required for a security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant intentionally omitted material information from the electronic security clearance application.
The applicant provided contradictory explanations for the omission, undermining his credibility.
The applicant's conduct raised significant concerns about his judgment and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire.
E2.A5.1.2.4raisedConcealment of Information That Increases an Individual's Vulnerability to Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress.

Key Rule Quoted

“When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a security clearance application, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of clearance holders.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 18, 2003
Answer filedMar 27, 2003
Hearing heldJul 24, 2003
Decision dateNov 26, 2003

Cite For

Intentional Omission of Material Information Under Guideline E
Credibility Issues Arising From Contradictory Explanations
Importance of Honesty and Integrity in Security Clearance Applications

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: denied

The judge found against the applicant under Guideline E due to the intentional omission of a child's name from an electronic security clearance application. The applicant provided contradictory explanations for this omission, which undermined his reliability and trustworthiness for holding a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1	Applicant intentionally omitted the name of a child from his electronic security clearance application (ESCA).	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

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: November 26, 2003

In Re:

-------------------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-17881

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS

Applicant's different and contradictory explanations for omitting material information from an electronic security clearance application (ESCA) preclude a finding that he currently possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of individuals with access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On March 18, 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 March 27, 2003. The case was assigned to the undersigned on June 18, 2003. A Notice of Hearing was issued on July 2, 2003, and the hearing was held on July 24, 2003. Following the hearing, applicant submitted a five page document. This document was marked as Exhibit B and admitted into evidence. The transcript was received on August 11, 2003.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is 54 years of age. He is employed as an access control officer by a defense contractor.

From 1990 through November 1992, applicant, who was married at the time, had an affair with another woman. The affair produced a child (hereinafter referred to as "the child"). Exhibit B establishes that applicant's wife, brother, and two adult children know about the affair and the child. Although it is not clear if these individuals know that applicant pays $200.00 a month in child support to the child's mother, I find that by disclosing the affair and the existence of the child to these family members, applicant has eliminated his vulnerability to coercion, exploitation and duress. Applicant completed an electronic security clearance application (ESCA) on March 4, 2002 (Exhibit 1). Module 9 of the ESCA required applicant to disclose the names of his "Relatives and Associates," including children. Any reasonable person reading Module 9 would understand that the child, although illegitimate, had to be listed. Applicant disclosed the names of the two children he had with his wife, but did not disclose the name of the child.

Applicant has provided at least three different explanations for not listing the child's name. First, based on his interpretation of the ESCA's requirements, he did not believe he was required to list the child (TR at 36). He explained that under his interpretation of the ESCA, (a) he did not have to list the child's name because he was not listed as the child's father on the child's birth certificate, or on any other documents (TR at 36-37), (b) he did not have to list the child's name because the child was born out of wedlock (Exhibit 2), (c) the only mandatory disclosures required by Module 9 were the names of the mother and father and "anybody that you happen to deal with that happens to be a foreign national" (TR at 47), and (d) the requirements under the ESCA "had to do with a 10 year situation," and as far as he was concerned, "it was prior to the 10 years" (TR at 41). Second, he omitted the child's name "due to confusion" on his part (SOR Response). When asked at the hearing what he was confused about, applicant replied: "I don't believe there is a requirement on the (ESCA) to put down these people that I didn't think about to start with" (TR at 49). Third, the child never even crossed his mind when he was filling out the ESCA (TR at 45-46, 55). Based on the evidence presented, I find that applicant knew he was required to list the child's name on the ESCA, and that he intentionally omitted the name of the child.

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth Guidelines (divided into conditions that could raise security concerns and conditions that could mitigate security concerns) which must be followed by the Administrative Judge. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the following Guidelines are applicable:

Personal Conduct

Disqualifying Conditions

E2.A5.1.2.2: The deliberate omission of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire.

E2.A5.1.2.4: Concealment of information that increases an

individual's vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or duress.

Mitigating Conditions

E2.A5.1.3.5: The individual has taken positive steps to significantly

reduce or eliminate vulnerability to coercion, exploitation or duress.

CONCLUSION

Applicant's omission of the child's name, which was clearly material information, from the ESCA is extremely troubling. The Government relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of individuals seeking access to our nation's secrets. When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a security clearance application, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of clearance holders.

In this case, I have considered the positive evidence applicant offered about his background, including his 10 years of service in the U.S. Army, with at least one tour of duty in Vietnam, and his 25 years of service as a county sheriff. I have also considered the fact that applicant's falsification of the ESCA was an isolated incident, (1) and that when questioned by a DSS agent, applicant revealed the existence of the child. These factors, however, are insufficient to overcome applicant's incredible explanations for not disclosing the name of the child on the ESCA. By offering different, contradictory explanations for not revealing the child's name, applicant has made it impossible to conclude that he currently possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of individuals with access to classified information. For this reason, Guideline E is found against applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant.

____________________________

Joseph Testan

Administrative Judge

1. Applicant does not qualify for Mitigating Condition E2.A5.1.3.2 because the falsification was recent.

FOOTNOTES

02-17881.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Jennifer I. Campbell, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-17881.h1.html[6/24/2021 10:59:55 AM] 02-17881.h1