Summary
A 40-year-old missile technician was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from deliberate omissions on his security clearance application (SCA) concerning a DUI conviction and overdue debts.
Specifically, the applicant deliberately failed to disclose an alcohol-related incident and a credit card debt on his SCA. While he also had a collection bureau debt and a department store debt, the judge found these were not deliberately omitted. The applicant's criminal conduct history included a DUI conviction from October 1995, which he also failed to disclose.
The judge determined that the applicant's deliberate omission of the DUI conviction and his failure to disclose three overdue debts raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability. The applicant did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate these security concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant deliberately omitted a DUI conviction from his security clearance application.
- The applicant failed to disclose three overdue debts, raising concerns about his judgment and reliability.
- The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns related to his omissions.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire Used to Determine Security Clearance Eligibility or Trustworthiness.
- E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations of Criminal Conduct Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged.
- E2.A5.1.3.1rejectedThe Information Was Unsubstantiated or Not Pertinent to a Determination of Judgment, Trustworthiness, or Reliability.The DUI was substantiated and pertinent to judgment and trustworthiness.
- E2.A5.1.3.2rejectedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Was Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information Voluntarily.The omissions were not isolated and occurred less than three years ago.
- E2.A5.1.3.3rejectedThe Individual Made Prompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the Falsification Before Being Confronted with the Facts.The applicant was confronted with the information before disclosing it.
- E2.A10.1.3.1rejectedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent.The deliberate concealment occurred less than three years ago.
- E2.A10.1.3.2rejectedThe Crime Was an Isolated Incident.The applicant's omissions were not isolated.
- E2.A10.1.3.6rejectedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation.The applicant did not demonstrate rehabilitation or recognition of the importance of honesty.
Key Rule Quoted
“An applicant has a duty to be honest and forthright during the security investigation.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJan 15, 2004
- Answer filedFeb 5, 2004
- Hearing held—Decided on written record.
- Decision dateJun 13, 2005
Cite For
- Deliberate Omissions in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
- Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
- Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Security Concerns Related to Personal Conduct.