Summary
A 30-year-old satellite technician for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's deliberate falsification of his December 2001 SF-86 application. Specifically, he omitted two alcohol-related arrests from 1995 and 1998, as well as a prior security clearance suspension. These omissions were not corrected promptly or in good faith before an interview with a DSS agent 17 months later.
The applicant's history included two DUI incidents in 1995 and 1998, which he failed to disclose. While the applicant attempted to refute or mitigate allegations regarding his security clearance suspension, which was associated with an administrative discharge and his failure to inform his spouse about seized pornographic materials, these efforts were not sufficient.
The judge found that the applicant's explanations for his omissions lacked credibility and indicated an intent to conceal adverse information. Despite favorable character references from his employer, the deliberate concealment of material information raised significant security concerns regarding the applicant's judgment and reliability, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant deliberately omitted two alcohol-related arrests from his SF-86, which were material to the security clearance evaluation.
- The applicant failed to demonstrate prompt and good-faith efforts to correct his omissions before being interviewed by a DSS agent.
- The applicant's explanations for his omissions were not credible and reflected a desire to conceal adverse information.
Conditions Referenced
- DC 2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, Falsification or Misrepresentation of Relevant and Material Facts
- DC 1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
- DC 2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- MC 2rejectedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Was Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information Voluntarily
- MC 3rejectedThe Individual Made Prompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the Falsification Before Being Confronted with the Facts
- MC 2appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
- MC 6appliedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation
Key Rule Quoted
“The Government must be able to repose a high degree of trust in persons it grants access to classified information.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedNov 14, 2003
- Answer filedDec 3, 2003
- Hearing heldMay 19, 2004
- Decision dateJun 29, 2004
Cite For
- Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
- Disqualifying Conditions Related to Personal Conduct and Criminal Conduct
- The Importance of Prompt and Good-faith Disclosures in Security Clearance Evaluations