Summary
The applicant, a 31-year-old IT technician with a history of gambling, faced security clearance denial due to unpaid debts, a pattern of criminal conduct, and dishonesty in his security clearance application. The judge found that the applicant's financial issues and criminal history raised significant concerns about his trustworthiness and reliability.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant committed multiple criminal offenses to acquire funds to support his gambling (3.a). Applicant falsified material facts on his SCA in answering question 21 (3.b). Applicant falsified material facts on his SCA in answering question 26 (3.c). Applicant falsified material facts on his SCA in answering question 37 (3.d). Applicant falsified material facts on his SCA in answering question 38 (3.e). Applicant falsified material facts on his SCA in answering question 39 (3.f). medical bill $245. Unpaid; claims care was for sports injury and college should have paid. No documents (1.a). medical bill $201. Unpaid; claims care was for sports injury and college should have paid. No documents (1.b). credit card acct charged off $1,759. Same as 1.n. Used card for gambling (1.c). was arrested in July 2001 for failing to pay court-ordered fines and was sentenced to 90 days in jail (2.a). was arrested in December 2000 and charged with felony theft for the unauthorized taking of a pickup truck he had previously pawned (2.b). was arrested in June 2000 for felony theft for stealing a computer and a microwave from his ex-wife (2.c). was arrested in December 1999 for felony theft (2.d). was arrested in February 1999 for theft for passing two checks on a closed account (2.e). pled guilty in April 2001 for unauthorized use (2.f). pled guilty in October 2000 to attempted felony theft (2.g). pled guilty to theft in January 2001 (2.h). pled guilty to misdemeanor theft in April 1999 (2.i).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A6.1.2.1, E2.A6.1.2.3, E2.A6.1.2.5, E2.A10.1.1, E2.A10.1.2.1, E2.A5.1.1, E2.A5.1.2.2, E2.A5.1.2.5. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A6.1.3.3, E2.A6.1.3.6, E2.A10.1.3.1, E2.A10.1.3.4, E2.A10.1.3.6, E2.A5.1.2.3. The decision turned on the following: Applicant has a history of delinquent debts totaling over $30,000 and an unpaid judgment of more than $1,400; Applicant engaged in multiple criminal acts, including theft and fraud, which raised doubts about his judgment and reliability; Applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application, demonstrating a lack of candor and trustworthiness.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- Applicant has a history of delinquent debts totaling over $30,000 and an unpaid judgment of more than $1,400.
- Applicant engaged in multiple criminal acts, including theft and fraud, which raised doubts about his judgment and reliability.
- Applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application, demonstrating a lack of candor and trustworthiness.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A6.1.2.1raisedFinancial Considerations
- E2.A6.1.2.3raisedFinancial Considerations
- E2.A6.1.2.5raisedFinancial Considerations
- E2.A10.1.1raisedCriminal Conduct
- E2.A10.1.2.1raisedCriminal Conduct
- E2.A5.1.1raisedPersonal Conduct
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedPersonal Conduct
- E2.A5.1.2.5raisedPersonal Conduct
- E2.A6.1.3.3rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsApplicant failed to convince the judge that his gambling was beyond his control.
- E2.A6.1.3.6rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsApplicant did not make a good-faith effort to resolve his debts after stopping gambling.
- E2.A10.1.3.1rejectedCriminal ConductThe applicant's recent falsifications indicated ongoing issues with honesty.
- E2.A10.1.3.4rejectedCriminal ConductThe applicant's history of criminal conduct raised concerns about future behavior.
- E2.A10.1.3.6rejectedCriminal ConductThe applicant's dishonesty undermined claims of rehabilitation.
- E2.A5.1.2.3rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant's pattern of dishonesty was not mitigated by any evidence of rehabilitation.
Key Rule Quoted
“An applicant "has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMar 12, 2004
- Answer filedApr 16, 2004
- Hearing heldMar 13, 2006
- Decision dateApr 19, 2006
Cite For
- Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
- Denial Due to a Pattern of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
- Lack of Candor and Dishonesty Impacting Security Clearance Under Guideline E